(103)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 04.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 11th September, 2025 Neeru Nagpal ...Appellant(s)

Versus Sunheri Devi and others ...Respondent(s)

FAO-880-1993 (O&M)

Neeru Nagpal ...Appellant(s)

Versus Raj Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Raghav Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate, for United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

* * * *

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeals are preferred by the appellant against the award dated 30.08.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, wherein the Tribunal directed the owner and driver of the offending vehicle/tempo to pay the half share of the compensation to claimants, and exonerated the insurer from liability as the deceased and injured were gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle. Thus, the appellant challenges this finding, seeking to fasten liability on the insurer.

2. On 1.8.1990, Hans Raj, a 24-year-old bachelor, along with Raj Kumar and other passengers, boarded a four-wheeler/tempo No. HR-05-4150 from Panipat to Karnal on payment of fare. The tempo, driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1/driver, collided near Arpana Hospital, Madhuban, with a stationary Toyota (No. DBL-1253), as a result of which Hans Raj sustained fatal injuries and died soon after, while Raj Kumar suffered multiple grievous injuries. Hans Raj’s mother, Sunehri Devi, filed a claim petition seeking ₹4,00,000 compensation for his death, while Raj Kumar filed another petition claiming ₹5,00,000 for his injuries. The owners and insurers of both vehicles were impleaded as parties, with allegations of composite negligence raised, and the insurance companies contested the claims on grounds including breach of policy conditions under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The learned Tribunal held that the accident to be the result of rash and negligent driving of the tempo, coupled with contributory negligence of the stationary vehicle, and directed the owner and driver of the tempo to pay half share of the compensation to the claimants, while exonerating the insurance company from liability on the ground that the deceased and injured were gratuitous passengers not covered under the policy and statutory provisions of the Act.

4. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both sides and meticulously scrutinising the file, the matter now stands ripe for adjudication and I proceed to render my findings as under.

5. The central question which arises for determination in both the appeals is:

Whether the insurer can be held liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the death and injury of a passengers who had taken a lift in a goods vehicle?

6. Learned counsel for appellant relies upon the Judgment passed by co-ordinate bench of this court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Jind v. Manit Kaur, 2023(3) RCR(Civil) 719. In that case, insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants for death or injury, as the said comprehensive policy of vehicle clearly showed basic third party cover included. There, the insurance company had taken on wider liability through specific clauses in the insurance policy, and the Court fastened liability on that basis. However, in present case, Firstly the policy covering the tempo clearly states that liability is limited only to authorised non-fare paying passengers under Schedule 2. Further, Section II of the policy excludes liability for death or injury to any person other than a passenger carried in the course of employment or related to goods being carried. The deceased and injured were not such authorized passengers. Thus, in this case there is no contractual extension of liability. On the contrary, the policy itself specifically excludes passengers like them. Secondly, the