FAO No. 1620 of 2008 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
...
FAO No. 1620 of 2008
Date of decision: August 17, 2009
Ram Mehar son of Mata Bakash
..Appellant
Versus
Bimla Devi and others ..Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. Chankaya Pandit,Advocate
for the appellant
Mr.Anil Malik, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate
for respondent No.3
,,,
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J(Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the Driver-cum-Owner of the
offending vehicle challenging the impugned award whereby claimant-respondent
Nos.1 and 2 have been awarded compensation for the death of one Balwinder
Singh and the Insurer has been absolved from its liability to pay.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that one
Balwinder Singh died in a motor vehicular accident on 10.3.2007 due to rash and
negligent driving of one Alto Car bearing Registration No. HR-08G-4578 by the
appellant. Respondent-claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation.
Upon notice, appellant denied the accident. Respondent-Insurance
Company also denied its liability to pay. The Tribunal concluded that accident in
question took place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car by the
appellant and held that respondents are entitled to a compensation of Rs.
2,90,000/-.
However, the Tribunal further held that since no extra premium was
paid by the insured to cover any gratuitous passengers, the insurer cannot be
held liable to pay any compensation on account of death of Balwinder Singh who
FAO No. 1620 of 2008 2
was admittedly a gratuitous passenger.
Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel
for the appellant has vehemently argued that under the new Act, Insurance
policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger for
vehicle of any type or class and therefore, the liability of the insurance company
cannot be excluded in such a case. In support of his argument, learned counsel
for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of New India Assurance Company Versus Satpal Singh and others
2000( 1) PLR 464.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has controverted the stand taken by the counsel for the appellant
and has argued that the judgment in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) cited by the
counsel for the appellant has been specifically over ruled in a specific judgment
cited as New India Assurance Company Versus Asha Rani and others 2003(1)
P.L.R. 1(S.C.). Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United
India Insurance Company Ltd. Shimla Versus Tilak Singh and others-2006(2)
P.L.R. 297 and in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Meena Variyal, 2007
(3) PLR 501(SC), to argue that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to
pay any compensation for such gratuitous passenger.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, deceased Balwinder Singh was travelling as gratuitous
passenger in the offending car in question and no extra premium was paid by the
insured to the insurer to cover any such case of the gratuitous passenger in the
offending car. I find no merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the
appellant as the law is well settled in this regard by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.
No merit. Dismissed.
August 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
nk JUDGE
FAO No. 1620 of 2008 3