FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 236-1 FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant V/S PARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 236-2 FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) PAWAN KUMAR .....Appellant V/S CHAMPA RANI AND OTHERS .....Respondents 236-3 FAO-195-2002 (O&M) CHAMPA RANI AND OTHERS .....Appellants V/S PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 236-4 XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) PARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS .....Appellants V/S THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate for Ms. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company in FAO-1485-2002. Mr. Arun K. Vasudeva, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-195-2002. Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO-1485-2002 and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -2- for cross-objector in XOBJC-55-CII-2002. Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO-1544-2002. (through V.C.) Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1544-2002. Ms. Jagriti Kalia, A.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.5 to 7 and 10 in FAO-1485-2002 and for respondent No.9 in FAO-1544-2002. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL) 1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforesaid three appeals and cross-objections. 2. In FAO-195-2002, a copy of the order dated 28.04.2026 passed by the Tribunal has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. 3. FAO-1485-2002 has been instituted by Insurance Company against the award dated 04.01.2002 passed in MACT Case No.18 of 1998 by MACT, Gurdaspur vide which a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimants Paramjit Kaur etc. in respect of death of Gurcharan Singh and owner, driver and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle bearing No.PUG 6063 have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. 4. Cross-objections bearing No.XOBJ-55-CII-2002 have been filed by claimants Paramjit Kaur etc. in FAO-1485-2002 against the award dated 04.01.2002 in MACT Case No.18 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -3- 5. FAO-195-2002 has been filed by claimants Smt. Champa Rani etc. for enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT Gurdaspur in MACT Case No.7 of 1998 vide which a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Kulbushan Sharma payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally while the Insurance Company has been exonerated of its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle bearing No.PBG-6063 was not insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. 6. FAO-1544-2002 has been instituted by the owner of the offending vehicle against the Award dated 08.08.2001 passed in MACT Case No.7 of 1998 vide which the Insurance Company has been exonerated of its liability and the owner and driver have been held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to claimants Smt. Champa Rani etc. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.18 of 1998:- “1. Whether the petitioners are legal heirs and dependents of Gurcharan Singh? OPA. 2. Whether Gurcharan Singh has died in the accident while driving the offending vehicle truck by Bachan Lal driver rashly and negligently? OPA 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? 4. Relief.” 8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.7 of 1998:- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -4- “1. Whether deceased Kulbhushan Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 15.2.98 on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.PBG-6063 by its driver, respondent No.2 deceased Bachan Lal, (now represented through his LRs)? OPA. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, its extent, amount and from whom of the respondents? OPA 3. Whether the driver of offending truck bearing No.PBG-6063 deceased Bachan Lal, (now represented through his LRs) was not holding legal and valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-4. 4. Whether offending truck bearing NO.PBG-6063 was being driven without valid route permit, fitness certificate and in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy? OPR-4. 5. Relief.” 9. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 10. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal, vide Award dated 08.08.2001 passed in MACT Case No.7 of 1998, awarded compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- to the claimants/appellants-Smt. Champa Rani etc. on account of the death of Kulbushan Sharma, while exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability and holding the owner and driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. Thereafter, vide Award dated 04.01.2002 passed in MACT Case No.18 of 1998, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants/appellants-Paramjit Kaur etc. on account of the death of Gurcharan PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -5- Singh and held the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals and cross-objection in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 12. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that both the claim petitions i.e. MACT Case No.7 of 1998 and MACT Case No.18 of 1998 have arisen out of the same accident in which two persons namely Kulbushan Sharma and Gurcharan Singh respectively had died. 13. In claim petition MACT Case No.18 of 1998 titled Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, the registration number of the offending truck was mentioned as PUG-6063, which was the correct number but inadvertently, in claim petition MACT Case No.7 of 1998 titled Smt. Champa Rani and others Vs. Pawan Kumar and others, the registration number of the offending truck was mentioned as PBG-6063 as a result of which, Insurance Company was exonerated of its liability to pay compensation to the claimants in this claim petition. 14. During pendency of the present appeals, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in FAO-1544-2002 had given liberty to the claimants Champa Rani etc. to move an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur for correction of the truck number in claim petition bearing MACT Case No.7 of 1998. Thereafter, an application was moved before PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -6- the Tribunal and vide order dated 28.04.2026, whose copy has been placed on file, the application in hand has been allowed and it has been held that the correct registration number of the truck involved in the accident was PUG-6063 and not PBG-6063. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-195-2002 argued that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Deceased was working as a teacher in Education Department, Punjab and was getting salary of Rs.7,412/- per month as per salary certificate Ex.A2, which was duly proved by AW3 Dalbir Singh. However, the Tribunal observed that the basic pay of the deceased was Rs.5,640/- per month and while taking into consideration the fact that his carry home salary was Rs.5,000/-, the loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month, which is contrary to law. The entire salary which included basic pay, dearness allowance, medical allowance, HRA and RA should have been taken into consideration while assessing his monthly income without making any deductions. Deceased was 27 years of age and as such, 50% amount should have been added towards future prospects as he was a permanent Government employee. Deceased has left behind three dependents, who are his wife and parents and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency should have been assessed and multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Besides this, claimants are also entitled to statutory benefits i.e. compensation on account of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -7- of consortium and learned counsel prayed that the compensation be adequately enhanced. 16. Learned counsel for cross-objectors-Paramjit Kaur etc. in FAO-1485- 2002 contends that deceased Gurcharan Singh was working as Junior Assistant in PWD Department and was getting salary of Rs.6,200/- per month as per salary certificate mark X produced on file and his total emoluments were Rs.6,927/- which includes Dearness allowance, medical allowance, House Rent allowance and Additional House Rent Allowance to the extent of 5%. He was 44 years of age. Despite the fact that his monthly emoluments were Rs.6927/- per month, the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income to be Rs.6200/- per month, which is on lower side. Deceased has left behind four dependents but 1/3rd of the amount has been deducted towards personal and living expenses whereas 1/4th of the amount should have been deducted. No future prospects have been added despite the fact that he was in permanent employment and 30% amount should have been added to the monthly income as he was 44 years of age. Multiplier of 10 has been applied whereas multiplier of 14 should have been applied. Besides this, claimants are also held entitled to statutory benefits i.e. compensation on account of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and learned counsel prayed that the compensation be adequately enhanced. 17. In support of their contentions, learned counsel have relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -8- and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-1544-2002, which has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, has argued that the claimants in claim petition bearing MACT No.18 of 1998 had mentioned the correct registration number of the offending vehicle as PUG-6063. However, claimants in claim petition bearing MACT Case No.7 of 1998 had mentioned wrong registration number as PBG-6063 as a result of which the Tribunal held that the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company and Insurance Company has been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured/owner. Learned counsel next contended that vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in FAO-1544-2002, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had given the liberty to the claimants in MACT Case No.7 of 1998 to move an appropriate application before MACT, Gurdaspur for getting the registration number of the offending vehicle corrected in the award and in pursuance of the order dated 25.09.2025, the claimants had moved an application before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide order dated 28.04.2026 has held that the correct registration number of the offending vehicle is PUG-6063 and as such, it is the Insurance Company which is liable to indemnify the insured. Learned counsel next contended that the vehicle in question was hired by State of Punjab for transporting Election material and deceased who were employees of the Punjab Government were travelling along with the election material and as PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -9- such, they were owners of the goods being transported and in such an eventuality, they cannot be termed as gratuitous passengers. Insurance Company is thus liable to indemnify the insured and there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and he prayed that appeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing FAO-1485-2002 be dismissed and appeal filed by owner/insurer be allowed. 19. Learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle in which the deceased were travelling as gratuitous passengers. No payment was made for carrying passengers and merely because the truck had been requisitioned by the State of Punjab for transporting election material, the owner and driver were not supposed to carry the employees of the Punjab Government and they certainly were gratuitous passengers and in these circumstances, Insurance is not liable to indemnify the insured. Learned counsel contended that Insurance Company be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured and Insurance Company be given the right to recover the amount of compensation from the insured. Compensation in FAO-195-2002, Smt. Champa Rani and others Vs. Pawan Kumar and others, arising out of MACT No.7 of 08.08.2001:- 20. As per version of the claimants, deceased was a teacher in Education Department, Punjab and was getting salary of Rs.7,412/- per month. AW3-Dalbir Singh has proved salary certificate Ex.A2 which shows that he was getting basic pay, Dearness allowance, Medical allowance, HRA and RA and total emoluments PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -10- were Rs.7,412/- per month. However, Tribunal observed that the basic pay of the deceased was Rs.5,046/- per month and by taking into consideration the fact that his carry home salary was Rs.5,000/-, the loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. However, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal committed a grave error by considering the carry home salary of Rs.5,000/- to be the monthly income whereas, deceased was earning Rs.7,412/- per month and no amount could have been deducted as the payments were in respect of Basic Pay, House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance and RA, which are a part of salary. Resultantly, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,412/- per month. 21. Deceased was 27 years of age and was a permanent employee of State of Punjab and as such, 50% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.11,118/- per month (Rs.7,412/- + Rs.3,706/-). 22. As per claimants, deceased has left behind three dependents including his wife, mother and father. As per law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors, father has to be treated as financially dependent upon his deceased son. As such, deceased has left behind three dependents and 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.7,412/- and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.88,944/- (Rs.7,412/- X 12). PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -11- 23. Since deceased was 27 years of age, multiplier of 17 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.15,12,048/- (Rs.88,944/- x 17). 24. In addition to this, claimant No.3 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.1 and 2 (mother and father of the deceased) are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.16,62,048/- (Rs.15,12,048/- + Rs.1,50,000/-). 25. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.7,412/- per month 2. Age of deceased 27 years 3. Future prospects @ 50% Rs.3,706/- 4. Total income Rs.11,118/-per month 5. Number of dependents 3 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.3,706/- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -12- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.7,412/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.88,944/- (Rs.7,412/- X 12) 9. Multiplier 17 10. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,048/- (Rs.88,944/- x 17) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.3- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to remaining claimants for loss of filial consortium (mother and father) Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2) 13. Total Compensation Rs.16,62,048/- 26. Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimant comes to Rs. 11,94,048/- (Rs.16,62,048/- - Rs.4,68,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.11,94,000/-). Compensation in XOBJC-55-CII-2002 , Paramjit Kaur And Others Vs. The State Of Punjab And Others , arising out of MACT No.18 of 1998 :- 27. As per version of the claimants, deceased was a Junior Assistant in PWD Department and was getting salary of Rs.6,200/- per month as per salary certificate Mark X produced on file and his total emoluments were Rs.6,927/- per month which includes Dearness allowance, Medical allowance, HRA and Additional House Rent Allowance to the extent of 5%. Despite the fact that his monthly emoluments were Rs.6,927/- per month, the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income to be Rs.6,200/- per month, which is on lower side. Deceased was earning Rs.6,927/- per month and no amount could have been deducted as the payments were in respect of Dearness Allowance, Medical Allowance and House PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -13- Rent Allowance which are a part of salary. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,927/- per month. 28. Deceased was 44 years of age and was a permanent employee of State of Punjab and as such, 30% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.9,005/- per month (Rs.6,927/- + Rs.2,078/-). 29. As per claimants, deceased has left behind four dependents including his wife, son and two minor daughters. Accordingly, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.6,753/- and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.81,036/- (Rs.6,753/- X 12). 30. Since deceased was 44 years of age, multiplier of 14 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.11,34,504/- (Rs.81,036/- x 14). 31. In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2 to 4 (children of the deceased) are also held entitled to PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -14- a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.13,24,504/- (Rs.11,34,504/- + Rs.1,90,000/-). 32. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.6,927/- per month 2. Age of deceased 44 years 3. Future prospects @ 30% Rs.2,078/- 4. Total income Rs.9,005/- per month 5. Number of dependents 4 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/4th) Rs.2,252/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.6,753/- 8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.81,036/- (Rs.6,753/- X 12) 9. Multiplier 14 10. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.11,34,504/- (Rs.81,036/- x 14) 11. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.70,000/- 12. Compensation to remaining claimants for loss of parental consortium (son and daughters) Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) 13. Total Compensation Rs.13,24,504/- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -15- 33. Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimant comes to Rs. 9,24,504/- (Rs.13,24,504/- - Rs.4,00,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.9,25,000/-). Issue of liability 34. In claim petition MACT No.18 of 1998, correct registration Number of the truck was mentioned as PUG-6063 and in that case, the Insurance Company was held liable to indemnify the owner and to pay compensation to the claimants- Paramjit Kaur etc. However, inadvertently, the claimants in claim petition MACT Case No.7 of 1998 had mentioned wrong registration number of the offending truck as PBG-6063. However, on the direction of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in FAO-1544-2002, an application was moved before the Tribunal by the claimants for correction of registration number of the offending truck and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.04.2026, whose copy has placed on file, has held that truck No.PUG-6063 was involved in the accident. 35. Next point to be determined is as to whether deceased were gratuitous passengers or not and whether the insured has violated terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. However, the answer is certainly in the negative for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 36. The Tribunal in claim petition bearing MACT Case No.18 of 1998, while deciding the issue of liability held as under:- “12. Regarding the liability of the insurance company on account of death of passenger Gurcharan Singh while travelling in the truck in question, it is, however, well settled principle of law laid down in case of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh and others, 2000 ACJ 1, wherein it was held PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -16- that "distinction between goods vehicle and passenger vehicle has since been eliminated under proviso (ii) to section 147(1) of the New Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purpose of awarding compensation to the gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle as a result of which it was held that under the New Act Insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class and the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case reported as Mallawwa Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 ACJ 1 (SC) vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force". Even as per para no.7 of the judgment reported as Ramesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. It has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "this takes us to the third category of cases where similar question is raised regarding liability of the insurance company under the new Act after its 1994 amendment. The submission for the claimant is, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation both in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh 2000 ACJ 1(SC) and also in view of its 1994 amendment. This Court in this case, while interpreting section 147(1) (b) (1) and (ii) of the new Act holds the insurance company liable to pay the compensation both for the owner and his representative and also for the gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. In this third category, in spite of the said declaration of claimants have confined their claim only for the owner or his representative who was travelling in a goods vehicle and not for the gratuitous passenger. Since Satpal Singh (supra) confers right over gratuitous passengers also, which is not claimed by any of the claimants under this category, thus declaration of law in Satpal Singh (supra) is not required to be considered for this category, as claim for the owner and his representative is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the insurance company, after its aforesaid 1994 amendment, that insurance company is liable to pay compensation for such person even when they were travelling in a goods vehicle. This is in view of 1994 amendment in sub clause (i) of section 147(1) (b) of the new Act in which the following words PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -17- were brought in: ..Injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle. 37. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle and was insured with respondent No.3. The same had been hired by State of Punjab for transporting the election material during election days vide requisition order Ex.R3 as also deposed by RW1 Subash Dutta, Tehsildar Election and RW2 S.K. Joshi, SDO and deceased who were employees of the Punjab Government were travelling in the offending truck and were carrying the election material. As such, they were owners of the goods, which were being transported, being representatives of Punjab Government which had requisitioned the truck and they cannot be termed as gratuitous passengers and there was thus no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. 38. Resultantly, finding on Issue No.4 in MACT Case No.7 of 1998 is reversed and same is decided against the Insurance Company. Finding on Issue No.2 is also partly reversed and it is held that the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants shall be that of the owner, driver and Insurance Company jointly and severally. No evidence was led by the Insurance Company on Issue No.3 which has been decided against the Insurance Company and the same is accordingly affirmed. 39. As a result of afore-said discussion, appeal bearing FAO No.195 of 2002 filed by the claimants Champa Rani etc. is partly accepted with costs, while PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -18- Cross-Objection bearing XOBJC-55-CII-2002 filed by Paramjit Kaur etc. against the award dated 04.01.2002 are partly accepted with costs. Appeal bearing FAO-1544-2002 filed by the owner is allowed with costs and appeal bearing FAO-1485-2002 filed by the Insurance Company is ordered to be dismissed with costs. 40. Claimants Champa Rani etc. in FAO No.195 of 2002 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.11,94,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 25.04.1998 till realization payable by Owner, driver and Insurer jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of 3,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to appellants No.1 and 2 while remaining amount be paid to appellant No.3 along with proportionate interest. 41. Claimants Paramjit Kaur etc. in XOBJC-55-CII-2002, are held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 25.07.1998 till realization payable by driver, owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of 1,00,000/- each along with proportionate interest be paid to appellants No.2 to 4 while remaining amount be paid to appellant No.1 along with proportionate interest. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1485-2002 (O&M) FAO-1544-2002 (O&M) FAO-195-2002 (O&M) XOBJC-55-CII-2002 (O&M) -19- 42. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 43. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 44. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Priyanka Thakur Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document