Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2012

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned award dated 29.7.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar whereby the liability to pay the compensation amount has been fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are, that on 12.6.2010 Ravi Dalal-claimant along with one Bittu was going in a car bearing No.HR-13-E/1766 from village Mattan to Bahardurgarh. When they reached near an under construction bridge of village Nuna Majra, the claimant lost his control over the motor vehicle and it hit against the bridge. The claimant received permanent disability to the extent of 30% FAO No.7001 of 2011 in an accident. -2- The claimant-appellant preferred claim petition bearing MACT Case No.56 of 2010 before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal Jhajar, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on

29.7.2010 awarding an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the appellant- Insurance company and on the owner of the vehicle. Feeling dissatisfied, against the award, the appellant- Insurance Company came up in the present appeal for setting aside the impugned award dated 29.7.2011 qua the liability. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the claim petition filed by the claimant was not maintainable, as the driver of the vehicle was not a third party. He further contends that the claimants has got permanent disability to the extent of 30% which is not covered under Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. He further contends that the claimant had filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 therefore the compensation can only be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Section 163-A of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that before the learned Tribunal the appellant-Insurance company has taken a specific stand that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the FAO No.7001 of 2011 -3- accident. But the Insurance Company failed to establish on record the same. Moreover, it is amply proved on record by the claimant that he has got permanent injury to the extent of 30% by using the vehicle which was duly insured by the appellant-Insurance company. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance company to pay the compensation along with registered owner of the vehicle. In view of the above, the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed having been failed on merits.

16.5.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE