IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 United India Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Krishna Devi and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 31.03.2018 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the respondents/claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,13,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of deceased-Rampal and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.5 (driver and owner of offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation, jointly and severely.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2017, deceased- Rampal was engaged as a labourer on truck bearing registration No.HR-64- 7390. Respondent No.1 was driving the said truck. He parked it near the office of the Electricity Board, Dhand Road, Pundri, and instructed Rampal to unload the sand from the said truck. While carrying out the unloading work, Rampal climbed on the truck. As he attempted to take a spade from the rooftop of cabin of the truck, he accidentally came in contact with a live electric wire carrying 11,000 volts. He was electrocuted on the spot and succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, DDR No.12 dated 16.06.2017 was recorded on the statement of one Ramesh Chand.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident dated 16.06.2017 at about 6:30/7:00 a.m in the area of P.S.Pundri resulting into death of Rampal son of Sukhi Ram, took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.HR-64-

7390 driven by respondent No.1? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of compensation and from whom the claimants are entitled to and thereof? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

OPD

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of M.V.Act and terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR

5. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,13,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of deceased-Rampal and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.5 (driver and owner of offending vehicle) were held liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation, jointly and severely. Hence, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding the claim petition maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The provision applies only where death or injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle. In the present case, the cause of death was electrocution and not any accident or injury attributable to the use or operation of the vehicle.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused whole record with his able assistance.

9. The relevant portion of the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“Issue No.1:-

16. Learned counsel for claimants submits that deceased Rampal was a labourer. On 16.6.2017 he was hired by respondent No.1 to unload sand from his truck No.HR64 7390. He s