HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Mac App No. 26/2023 Date of pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Date of uploading: 12.02.2026 National Insurance Company through Sh. Rattan Lal Age 57 years S/o Sh. Mani Ram, Manager, National Insurance Company, Shalimar Road, Jammu. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Ms. Snigdha, Advocate v/s 1. Savita Devi D/o Balbeer Singh 2. Bipon Singh S/o Balbeer Singh 3. Preetam Singh D/o Balbeer Singh 4. Vishal Devi D/o Balbeer Singh 5. Amar Chand S/o Sh. Sukh Ram 6. Shiv Devi W/o Amar Chand Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are minors through Respondent no. 1 being their mother and Next friend Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 parents of the deceased. All R/o Bass, Panchal Tehsil Banihal District Ramban. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. K.D.S. Kotwal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved, there is hardly any necessity to send the parties to mediation and, therefore, the case is taken up for consideration. Sr. No. 08 2 2. The instant appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against an award dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ramban [“the Tribunal”] passed in file no. 48/93/Claim titled “Savita Devi and Ors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum to the respondents herein on account of death of their predecessor in interest, namely, Balbeer Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Impugned award is challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company, primarily, on the ground that the deceased driver of the offending vehicle was himself a tortfeasor and, therefore, not entitled to be indemnified by the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.D.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the instant case, the driver of the offending vehicle was insured and for which the insured had paid a premium of Rs. 100/- and, therefore, was not a third party who could be denied the claim on the ground that he was a tortfeasor. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the deceased was a driver of the offending vehicle and was holding a valid driving license, as such, he was secured by the policy of insurance issued by the appellant-Insurance Company on receipt of separate premium of Rs. 100/- 6. Driver of the offending vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- which is the sum awarded by the Tribunal, in terms of the award impugned in this appeal. 3 7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no substance in the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. 8. The appeal, therefore, fails and the award of the Tribunal is upheld. 9. This appeal is found devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 11.02.2026 Manik