{"id":134297,"date":"2009-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-15T08:12:06","modified_gmt":"2018-05-15T02:42:06","slug":"oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009<\/div>\n
FAO No.3656 of 2008                                     -: 1 :-\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                      FAO No.3656 of 2008 (O&M)\n                                      Date of decision: December 10, 2009.\n\n\nOriental Insaurance Co. Ltd.\n                                                        ...Petitioner(s)\n\n            v.\n\nRama Devi & Ors.\n\n                                                        ...Respondent(s)\n\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG\n\n\nPresent:    Shri D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.\n\n            Shri Sanjeev Patyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.\n\n            Shri Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.\n\n\nRakesh Kumar Garg, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This judgment shall dispose of FAO Nos.3656 and 3657 of<\/p>\n
2008 as common questions of law on same facts arising out of the same<\/p>\n
accident has arisen in both these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
            These appeals have been filed by the insurer challenging the<\/p>\n
impugned award whereby the appellant has been held liable jointly and<\/p>\n
severally to pay compensation to the claimants as assessed by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
            As per the averments, on 2.6.2007, one Vijay Kumar (deceased)<\/p>\n
and injured\/claimant Rama Devi were going from their house to Una on<\/p>\n
Nangal-Una road on motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-19-2596.<\/p>\n
When they reached near Shivalik Avenue Chowk, Naya Nangal, one<\/p>\n
Mahindra Utility Jeep bearing registration No.CH-03-J-7461 which was
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                     -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
coming from opposite direction and was being driven by Subhash Chand<\/p>\n
(respondent No.3) at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,<\/p>\n
hit from wrong side against the motorcycle, as a result of which Vijay<\/p>\n
Kumar and his wife Rama Devi fell down on pucca road and thereafter<\/p>\n
driver of the jeep along with the vehicle fled from the spot. Vijay Kumar<\/p>\n
and his wife received multiple serious and grievous injuries. Vijay Kumar<\/p>\n
succumbed to his injuries on 7.6.2007. Rama Devi became permanently<\/p>\n
disabled due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Hence, these<\/p>\n
claim petitions.\n<\/p>\n
             Upon notice, respondents No.2 and 3 filed joint written<\/p>\n
statement denying the accident.      In a separate written statement, the<\/p>\n
appellant raised various preliminary objections including the ground that<\/p>\n
driver Subhash Chand was not holding a valid and effective driving licence<\/p>\n
at the time of the alleged accident. On merits all the material averments of<\/p>\n
the claim petition were denied with a prayer to dismiss the same.<\/p>\n
             On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal vide impugned<\/p>\n
awards held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and<\/p>\n
negligent driving of respondent Subhash Chand. It was further held that the<\/p>\n
claimants were entitled to the compensation and the appellant along with<\/p>\n
driver and owner of the offending vehicle were liable to pay jointly as well<\/p>\n
as severally, compensation to the claimants.      It was also held by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving of respondent Subhash Chand.\n<\/p>\n
             Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid findings, the insurance<\/p>\n
company has filed the present appeals on the ground that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
erred at law while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                      -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
insurer as it was proved on record that the driver of the offending vehicle<\/p>\n
was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.<\/p>\n
            Elaborating his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
argued that it was proved on record that the driver of the offending vehicle<\/p>\n
was having a driving licence for a light motor vehicle (non-transport)<\/p>\n
whereas the vehicle being driven by the driver was a light motor vehicle<\/p>\n
(transport). Thus, there was a clear breach of policy condition by the owner<\/p>\n
of the vehicle and as per settled law, a driving licence specifically granted<\/p>\n
for a non-transport vehicle cannot be considered valid for a transport<\/p>\n
vehicle and, therefore, judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In<\/p>\n
support of his case, the learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
Angad Kol and others<\/a>, 2009 ACJ 1411,<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and<\/p>\n
3 while raising rival contentions has not disputed that the offending vehicle<\/p>\n
is light motor vehicle (transport) and the respondent No.3 was authorized to<\/p>\n
drive LMV (NT), however, he argued that if the driver of the vehicle is<\/p>\n
possessing light motor vehicle licence, he is authorized to drive a light<\/p>\n
goods carriage vehicle as well. In support of his case, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondents has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR<\/a> 1999<\/p>\n
SC 3181 and National Insurance Company v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria,<\/a><\/p>\n
2008(1) RCR (Civil) 848.\n<\/p>\n
            Facts of this case are not in dispute. It is apparent from Ex.R3<\/p>\n
the copy of registration certificate that the vehicle in question is LMV T,<\/p>\n
i.e., light motor vehicle transport. The driving licence of the respondent
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                          -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
No.3 shows that he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle, but non<\/p>\n
transport.\n<\/p>\n
             Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as `the Act’) was<\/p>\n
enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles.<\/p>\n
“Goods carriage” has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean any motor<\/p>\n
vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or<\/p>\n
any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage<\/p>\n
of goods. The said Act also defines `heavy goods vehicle’, `heavy passenger<\/p>\n
motor vehicle’, `medium goods vehicle’ and `medium passenger motor<\/p>\n
vehicle’ as well as a `light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) of the Act to<\/p>\n
mean:\n<\/p>\n
        ” `light motor vehicle’ means a transport vehicle<\/p>\n
        or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of<\/p>\n
        which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the<\/p>\n
        unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed<\/p>\n
        7500 kilograms.”<\/p>\n
             In Ashok Gangdhar Maratha’s case, vehicle in question was a<\/p>\n
‘light motor vehicle’ weighing less than 6000 kilograms and the driver of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’<\/p>\n
only. The accident had taken place on 26.11.1991 and the vehicle was<\/p>\n
completely damaged. The insurer refused to honour its commitment of<\/p>\n
indemnifying the own damage cover under the insurance policy. While<\/p>\n
accepting the claim of the owner, the State Consumer Commission<\/p>\n
negatived the plea of the insurer that the vehicle was not being driven by a<\/p>\n
person having an effective driving licence. Appeal filed by the insurer was<\/p>\n
accepted by the National Commission holding that the driver of the
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                      -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
aforesaid vehicle, who was holding a driving licence for light motor vehicle<\/p>\n
only, was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle and, thus, the insured<\/p>\n
had committed breach of the terms of the policy and violated the provisions<\/p>\n
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in entrusting a transport vehicle to a person<\/p>\n
who was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and<\/p>\n
as a consequence thereof, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured<\/p>\n
in respect of the own damage claim. It is also not in dispute that legal<\/p>\n
representatives of the driver had filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Act for compensation which was resisted by the insurer on the ground that<\/p>\n
the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the<\/p>\n
vehicle and the aforesaid plea of the insurer was rejected by the Claims<\/p>\n
Tribunal and compensation was allowed to the legal representatives of the<\/p>\n
driver and no appeal was preferred by the insurer in that case. On the basis<\/p>\n
of the aforesaid facts and keeping in view the provisions and the fact that it<\/p>\n
was the case of the insurer itself that in the case of a light motor vehicle<\/p>\n
which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have<\/p>\n
specific authorization on the licence of the driver under Form VI of the<\/p>\n
Rules. The Apex Court observed as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “10. Definition of “light motor vehicle” as given in<\/p>\n
               clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to<\/p>\n
               a “light goods vehicle” or a “light transport vehicle”.<\/p>\n
               A “light motor vehicle” otherwise has to be covered<\/p>\n
               by     the definition of “motor vehicle” or “vehicle”<\/p>\n
               as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A<\/p>\n
               light motor vehicle cannot always mean          a light<\/p>\n
               goods carriage.    Light motor vehicle can be non-
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                       -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
             transport vehicle as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as<\/p>\n
             transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a<\/p>\n
             permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority<\/p>\n
             for that purpose, and since in the instant             case<\/p>\n
             there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party<\/p>\n
             nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in<\/p>\n
             question would remain a light motor vehicle. The<\/p>\n
             respondent also does not say that any permit was<\/p>\n
             granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a<\/p>\n
             transport   vehicle under      Section 66     of the Act.<\/p>\n
             Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was<\/p>\n
             not carrying any      goods, and thought it could be<\/p>\n
             said to have been designed to be used as a transport<\/p>\n
             vehicle or goods-carrier, it cannot be so held on<\/p>\n
             account of the statutory prohibition contained in<\/p>\n
             Section 66 of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Xxxx         xxxxx                  xxxxx       xxxxx\n\n             14. Now the          vehicle   in    the    present    case\n\n<\/pre>\n
             weighed 5,920 kilograms and the driver had the<\/p>\n
             driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is<\/p>\n
             not that, therefore, the insurance policy covered a<\/p>\n
             transport vehicle which meant         a goods    carriage.<\/p>\n
             The whole case of the insurer has been built on a<\/p>\n
             wrong premise. It is itself the case of the insurer<\/p>\n
             that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                       -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
               non-transport     vehicle,   there   was   no   statutory<\/p>\n
               requirement to have specific authorisation on the<\/p>\n
               licence of      the   driver under Form 6 under the<\/p>\n
               Rules. It has, therefore, to be held that Jadhav was<\/p>\n
               holding effective valid licence on the date of<\/p>\n
               accident     to drive light motor vehicle bearing<\/p>\n
               Registration No. KA-28-567.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa<\/p>\n
Nesaria and Ors.<\/a> 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 848, the vehicle involved in the<\/p>\n
accident was a matador van which had a ‘Goods Carriage’ permit granted in<\/p>\n
terms of Form No.7 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said vehicle met with<\/p>\n
an accident on 9.12.1999 causing death of one Gangawwa. A contention<\/p>\n
was raised on behalf of the insurer that the driver of the said vehicle did not<\/p>\n
possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle. However, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal rejected the aforesaid contention of the insurer. In appeal before<\/p>\n
the High Court, the arguments of the insurer was rejected in view of the fact<\/p>\n
that claimants were third parties and even on the ground that there is a<\/p>\n
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company<\/p>\n
could not be permitted to contend that it has no liability. Before the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, argument was raised on behalf of the insurer that a light<\/p>\n
motor vehicle cannot be a transport vehicle within the meaning of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed upon various Forms prescribed<\/p>\n
in terms of the Rules. The aforesaid contention of the insurer was contested<\/p>\n
by the respondents on the ground that keeping in view the definition of the<\/p>\n
“light motor vehicle” as contained in Section 2(21) of the Act, a “light<\/p>\n
goods carriage” would come within the purview thereof. It was also further
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                      -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that a “light goods carriage” having not been defined in the Act,<\/p>\n
the definition of the “light motor vehicles” clearly indicates that it takes<\/p>\n
within its umbrage both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle. The<\/p>\n
Apex Court after noticing various provisions of the Act and the Rules<\/p>\n
framed thereunder, observed as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that<\/p>\n
              transport vehicle has now been substituted for `medium goods<\/p>\n
              vehicle’ and `heavy goods vehicle’. The light motor vehicle<\/p>\n
              continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light<\/p>\n
              passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle.<\/p>\n
              A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor<\/p>\n
              vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods<\/p>\n
              vehicle as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              17.    The amendments carried out in the Rules having a<\/p>\n
              prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the<\/p>\n
              vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            Thus, the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the respondent<\/p>\n
as the same were passed keeping in view the provisions\/Rules prior to<\/p>\n
28.3.2001 and the facts of these cases.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            No doubt the definition of the `light motor vehicle’ brings<\/p>\n
within its umbrage both `transport vehicle’ or `omnibus’, but a distinction<\/p>\n
between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger<\/p>\n
motor vehicle exists as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/p>\n
which can be seen from the following provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n
            `Driving licence’ has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean the<\/p>\n
licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                      -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor<\/p>\n
vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.<\/p>\n
            Section 3 provides for the necessity of driving<\/p>\n
            licence, stating:\n<\/p>\n
             “3. Necessity for driving licence.–(1) No person<\/p>\n
             shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place<\/p>\n
             unless he holds an effective driving licence issued<\/p>\n
             to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no<\/p>\n
             person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than<\/p>\n
             a motor car or moter cycle hired for his own use or<\/p>\n
             rented under any scheme made under sub-section<\/p>\n
             (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence<\/p>\n
             specifically entitles him so to do.”\n<\/p>\n
            Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10<\/p>\n
prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the<\/p>\n
following effect :\n<\/p>\n
             “10. Form and contents of licences to drive.–<\/p>\n
             (1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence,<\/p>\n
             except a driving licence issued under section 18,<\/p>\n
             shall be in such form and shall contain such<\/p>\n
             information as may be prescribed by the Central<\/p>\n
             Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be,<\/p>\n
             driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling<\/p>\n
             the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                          -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
             of the following classes, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a) to (c) …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (d) light motor vehicle;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (e) transport vehicle;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (i) road Roller;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (j) motor vehicle of a specified
\n            description.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The distinction between a `light motor vehicle’ and a `transport<\/p>\n
vehicle’ is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor<\/p>\n
vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required<\/p>\n
to be obtained.      The distinction between a `transport vehicle’ and a non-<\/p>\n
transport can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an<\/p>\n
effective licence to drive a `transport vehicle’ whereas in case of any other<\/p>\n
licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.<\/p>\n
             The Apex Court, in Angand Kol’s case (supra), after<\/p>\n
considering the aforesaid various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,<\/p>\n
1988 and the Rules framed thereunder has held that Section 3 of the Act<\/p>\n
requires the driver to have a specific endorsement which would entitle him<\/p>\n
to ply such vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
             The effect of the different terms of licences granted in terms of<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 2(14) and 2(47) was also noticed by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal<\/a> [(2008) 1 SCC 696],<\/p>\n
wherein it was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “21. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company<\/p>\n
             that the vehicle of the complainant which met with
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                 -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
          an accident was a “transport vehicle”. It was<\/p>\n
          submitted that the insured vehicle was a “goods<\/p>\n
          carriage” and was thus a “transport vehicle”. The<\/p>\n
          vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was<\/p>\n
          authorised to drive light motor vehicle and not a<\/p>\n
          transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence<\/p>\n
          to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary<\/p>\n
          endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could<\/p>\n
          not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle<\/p>\n
          met with an accident, the Insurance Company<\/p>\n
          could not be made liable to pay compensation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        XXX           XXX           XXX<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          28.The argument of the Insurance Company is<\/p>\n
            that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no<\/p>\n
            valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709.<\/p>\n
            Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to<\/p>\n
            drive light motor vehicle. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
            the Insurance Company, referring to various<\/p>\n
            provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is<\/p>\n
            having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he<\/p>\n
            cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving<\/p>\n
            licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2<\/p>\n
            make it clear that if a vehicle is “light motor<\/p>\n
            vehicle”, but falls under the category of transport<\/p>\n
            vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                     -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not<\/p>\n
            done, a person holding driving licence to ply light<\/p>\n
            motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is<\/p>\n
            not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain<\/p>\n
            was having licence to drive light motor vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n            The licence was not endorsed as required and<\/p>\n
            hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in<\/p>\n
            absence      of   requisite   endorsement    and       the<\/p>\n
            Insurance Company could not be held liable.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            29. We find considerable force in the submission<\/p>\n
            of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.<\/p>\n
            We also find that the District Forum considered<\/p>\n
            the question in its proper perspective and held that<\/p>\n
            the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by<\/p>\n
            the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47)<\/p>\n
            of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore,<\/p>\n
            required the driver to have an endorsement which<\/p>\n
            would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not<\/p>\n
            even the case of the complainant that there was<\/p>\n
            such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to<\/p>\n
            ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of<\/p>\n
            the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar<\/p>\n
            who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the<\/p>\n
            District Forum was right in holding that Ram<\/p>\n
            Narain could not have driven the vehicle in<\/p>\n
            question.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n FAO No.3656 of 2008                                        -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
               In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal,<\/a> [2008]1<\/p>\n
SCC 696, the Apex Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok<\/p>\n
Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance<\/a> [(1999) (6) SCC 620], stating :<\/p>\n
                 “In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar’s case, 2000
\n                 ACJ 319 (SC) did not lay down that the driver
\n                 holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need
\n                 not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle
\n                 and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the
\n                 peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company
\n                 neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was
\n                 transport vehicle by placing on record the permit
\n                 issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance
\n                 Company was held liable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is, thus, evident that<\/p>\n
it is proved that respondent No.3 did not hold a valid and effective driving<\/p>\n
licence for driving a transport vehicle. Breach of conditions of the insurance<\/p>\n
policy is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records. Therefore, findings<\/p>\n
of the Tribunal that the respondents being owner, driver and insurer of the<\/p>\n
offending vehicle respectively shall be liable to pay the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation jointly and severally to the claimants, cannot be sustained in<\/p>\n
this regard.     However, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Courtin the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran<\/p>\n
Singh,<\/a> 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the findings of the Tribunal are modified to the<\/p>\n
extent and held that appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount of<\/p>\n
compensation from respondents No.2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
               These appeals are allowed to the extent as indicated above.<\/p>\n
\n\n\nDecember 12, 2009.                       [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ]\nkadyan                                                 Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 FAO No.3656 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3656 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: December 10, 2009. Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd. …Petitioner(s) v. Rama Devi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-15T02:42:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T02:42:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3195,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T02:42:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-15T02:42:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T02:42:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009"},"wordCount":3195,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009","name":"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T02:42:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-insaurance-co-ltd-vs-rama-devi-ors-on-10-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Oriental Insaurance Co. Ltd vs Rama Devi & Ors on 10 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}