IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 FAO-1407-2008 (O&M)

Reserved on: 27.08.2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ......Appellant Vs.

KAVITA AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 4.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance company against the Award dated 07.01.2008 passed in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.2006 Sh. Sunder Singh alongwith one Raghubir Singh was travelling in crane bearing registration no.HR-388-1607 hereinafter referred to as the offending crane) which was being driven by Bal Ram-respondent no.1. He was driving in a negligent manner. The deceased and Raghubar Singh asked him to slow down the speed but he did not listen to them. When they reached near Siddhdata Ashram at Surajkind Road, Faridabad on account of his rash driving the driver struck the offending crane against a well on Budia Nala, as a result of which the over-turned and fell into the drain (Nala). All the occupants of the crane sustained multiple injuries. They were immediately taken to hospital but Sh. Sunder Singh who had suffered grievous injuries on his vital organs succumbed to his injuries on the way.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1.Whether Sunder Singh had died in a vehicular accident that took place on account of rash and negligent driving of crane No.HR-388-1607 by respondent no.1 as alleged in the petition?

OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR3

4. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their 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 claimants. However, the liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurer. It is contended that the deceased, Sunder Singh, was travelling in the goods carriage as a gratuitous passenger and not in the capacity of an authorized representative of the owner of the goods accompanying the same for the purpose of ensuring their safety or proper delivery.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 4, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

“20. As regards liability of the respondent No.3-United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. it was not denied that the offending crane was insured with the said company. RW3 Arun Kumar Mehta, Senior Assistant of the said company proved the copy of the insurance policy Ex.R5 and stated that they had charged premium from the insured covering risk of third party, owner-

cum-driver and one employee of the insured.

A two fold objection had been raised by the Insurance Company firstly that respondent No.1 Balram was not holding a va