IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 Jaspal Kaur & Others Balbir Singh & Another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. the Award dated 05.02.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby claim petition No.57 dated 21.12.2009 filed by the appellants u A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.7 lakh on account of death of Satnam Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, has been dismissed. The 6 claimants are the parents, 2 sisters of the 2. appellants/claimants in the claim petition are that on Satnam Singh along with his cousin brother Ja back from village Khavaspur to Goindwal IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jaspal Kaur & Others Vs. Balbir Singh & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the Award dated 05.02.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby claim petition No.57 dated 21.12.2009 filed by the appellants u A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.7 lakh on account of death of Satnam Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, has been dismissed. The 6 claimants are the parents, 2 the deceased Satnam Singh. Brief facts of the case as stated by the appellants/claimants in the claim petition are that on Satnam Singh along with his cousin brother Ja back from village Khavaspur to Goindwal Sahib on a motor cycle bearing IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5083-2011(O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the Award dated 05.02.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby claim petition No.57 dated 21.12.2009 filed by the appellants under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.7 lakh on account of death of Satnam Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, has been dismissed. The 6 claimants are the parents, 2 major brothers, and 2 married Brief facts of the case as stated by the appellants/claimants in the claim petition are that on 27.11.2009, deceased Satnam Singh along with his cousin brother Jarmanjit Singh were coming Sahib on a motor cycle bearing 5 Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the Award dated 05.02.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby claim - A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.7 lakh on account of death of Satnam Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, has been and 2 married Brief facts of the case as stated by the 27.11.2009, deceased were coming Sahib on a motor cycle bearing SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document registration No. PB Singh on his correct left hand side of the road at a moderate speed, while Jarmanjit Singh was pillion rider. A 200 yards behind the Railway Crossing, in the meanwhile some vehicles came from the opposite side with deceased could not see properly and lost his control over the motor cyc and struck into Due to this accident, Satnam Singh and Jarmanjit Singh fell down on the road and received multiple injuries and became unconscious. Both were taken to Army Hospital, Amritsar for injuries, Satnam Singh was referred to Army Hospital Jalandhar and Jarmanjit Singh was admitted in Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. On 28.11.2009 Satnam Singh died in the Army Hospital, Jalandhar. A of death, he was was getting salary of Rs. 6000/ 3. the claim petition of the appellants has been wrongly dismissed as under a Package Policy, Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that furthermore, the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the Policy did not mention the number of the offending vehicle. It is contended that the chassis num the offending vehicle were duly mentioned. registration No. PB-46-G-9044 which was being driven by Singh on his correct left hand side of the road at a moderate speed, while Jarmanjit Singh was pillion rider. At about 6.30 P.M., when they were about 200 yards behind the Railway Crossing, in the meanwhile some vehicles came from the opposite side with dazzling light and due to this reason the deceased could not see properly and lost his control over the motor cyc and struck into backside of the cart (Rehra) which was loaded with bricks. Due to this accident, Satnam Singh and Jarmanjit Singh fell down on the road and received multiple injuries and became unconscious. Both were taken to Army Hospital, Amritsar for medical treatment. Due to serious injuries, Satnam Singh was referred to Army Hospital Jalandhar and Jarmanjit Singh was admitted in Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. On 28.11.2009 Satnam Singh died in the Army Hospital, Jalandhar. A of death, he was aged about 24 years and was a constable in the Army and was getting salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the claim petition of the appellants has been wrongly dismissed as under a Package Policy, the claimants were at least entitled to statutory amount of Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that furthermore, the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the Policy did not mention the number of the offending It is contended that the chassis num the offending vehicle were duly mentioned. Page 2 of 5 9044 which was being driven by deceased Satnam Singh on his correct left hand side of the road at a moderate speed, while about 6.30 P.M., when they were about 200 yards behind the Railway Crossing, in the meanwhile some vehicles light and due to this reason the deceased could not see properly and lost his control over the motor cycle backside of the cart (Rehra) which was loaded with bricks. Due to this accident, Satnam Singh and Jarmanjit Singh fell down on the road and received multiple injuries and became unconscious. Both were medical treatment. Due to serious injuries, Satnam Singh was referred to Army Hospital Jalandhar and Jarmanjit Singh was admitted in Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. On 28.11.2009 Satnam Singh died in the Army Hospital, Jalandhar. At the time aged about 24 years and was a constable in the Army and It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the claim petition of the appellants has been wrongly dismissed as under a the claimants were at least entitled to statutory amount of Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that furthermore, the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the Policy did not mention the number of the offending It is contended that the chassis number and registration number of Satnam Singh on his correct left hand side of the road at a moderate speed, while about 6.30 P.M., when they were about 200 yards behind the Railway Crossing, in the meanwhile some vehicles light and due to this reason the le backside of the cart (Rehra) which was loaded with bricks. Due to this accident, Satnam Singh and Jarmanjit Singh fell down on the road and received multiple injuries and became unconscious. Both were medical treatment. Due to serious injuries, Satnam Singh was referred to Army Hospital Jalandhar and Jarmanjit Singh was admitted in Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. On the time aged about 24 years and was a constable in the Army and It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the claim petition of the appellants has been wrongly dismissed as under a the claimants were at least entitled to statutory amount of Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that furthermore, the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that the Policy did not mention the number of the offending registration number of SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. incorrect in holding that the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB 9044 was not involved in the accident in question. been proved on record that engine number and chassis number of the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB in the Insurance Policy No.656832 commencing from 09.10.20 08.10.2010. Hence, it c not involved in the accident in question. claim petition of the appellants be allowed. 5. No.2/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as admittedly the deceased was borrower of the offending motorcycle which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by submitted that therefore the claim petition of the appellants was rightly dismissed. It is 6. 7. perused the case file in great detail. 8. driving a borrowed motorcycle. driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal is incorrect in holding that the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB 9044 was not involved in the accident in question. been proved on record that engine number and chassis number of the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-46-G- in the Insurance Policy No.656832 commencing from 09.10.20 . Hence, it cannot be said that the motorcycle in question was not involved in the accident in question. It is accordingly prayed that the claim petition of the appellants be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent /Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as admittedly the deceased was borrower of the offending motorcycle which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by submitted that therefore the claim petition of the appellants was rightly It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. It is admitted fact on record that the deceased was driving a borrowed motorcycle. Admittedly deceased Satnam Singh was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal is incorrect in holding that the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-46-G- 9044 was not involved in the accident in question. It is submitted that it has been proved on record that engine number and chassis number of the -9044 was similar as mentioned in the Insurance Policy No.656832 commencing from 09.10.2009 to annot be said that the motorcycle in question was It is accordingly prayed that the Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent /Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as admittedly the deceased was borrower of the offending motorcycle which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. It is submitted that therefore the claim petition of the appellants was rightly accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. made on behalf of the appellants. arned counsel for the appellants and admitted fact on record that the deceased was Admittedly deceased Satnam Singh was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-46-G-9044 which was 5 It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal is - It is submitted that it has been proved on record that engine number and chassis number of the 9044 was similar as mentioned to annot be said that the motorcycle in question was It is accordingly prayed that the Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent /Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity as admittedly the deceased was borrower of the offending motorcycle . It is submitted that therefore the claim petition of the appellants was rightly and SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document owned by respondent no.1/Balbir Singh. As such, Satnam Singh had stepped into the shoes of Balbir Singh. per landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited” 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 435, that legal heirs of borrower of vehicle would not be entitled to compensation both owner of offendingvehicle a per the conditions of the Policy in question, the claimants cannot get compensation as Satnam Singh had stepped into the shoes of Balbir Singh/owner of the motorcycle be from Balbir Singh. in “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Another” FAO-2570-2009 decided on 26.07.2010; “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Darshani Devi & Others” FAO Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Ranjit & Another” FAO 2011 decided on 24.03.2015; “Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rajesh and Others” FAO on 14.05.2014; Another” FAO judgment of followed. owned by respondent no.1/Balbir Singh. As such, Satnam Singh had stepped into the shoes of Balbir Singh. It is established position in law dmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited” 2009(3) RCR (Civil) legal heirs of borrower of vehicle would not be entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Act as, both owner of offendingvehicle as well as claimant per the conditions of the Policy in question, the claimants cannot get compensation as Satnam Singh had stepped into the shoes of Balbir Singh/owner of the motorcycle because he had borrowed the motorcycle from Balbir Singh.Reference may also be made to judgments of this Court “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Another” 2009 decided on 26.07.2010; “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devi & Others” FAO-7007-2011 decided on 18.03.2014; “M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Ranjit & Another” FAO 2011 decided on 24.03.2015; “Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rajesh and Others” FAO 14.05.2014; and “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Another” FAO-1200-2008 decided on 20.05.2010, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in owned by respondent no.1/Balbir Singh. As such, Satnam Singh had It is established position in law as dmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “Ningamma & Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited” 2009(3) RCR (Civil) legal heirs of borrower of vehicle would not be entitled to A of the Act as, a claimant cannot be claimant. In the present case, as per the conditions of the Policy in question, the claimants cannot get compensation as Satnam Singh had stepped into the shoes of Balbir cause he had borrowed the motorcycle Reference may also be made to judgments of this Court “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh & Another” 2009 decided on 26.07.2010; “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 2011 decided on 18.03.2014; “M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Ranjit & Another” FAO-6704- 2011 decided on 24.03.2015; “Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rajesh and Others” FAO-3764-2010 decided “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & 2008 decided on 20.05.2010, wherein the above said Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma (supra) has been 5 SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. of alleged eyewitness Anoop Singh AW1, registration number of the motorcycle on which the deceased and his cousin were travelling, has not been mentioned PW1 has also failed to men way of supplementary statement that Anoop Singh has mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle. 10. appellants that the Insurance Policy as also the did not mention the registration number of the motorcycle. undisputed that the Insurance Policy did not show the motorcycle number PB-46-G-9044 vehicle was Hero Hond had been applied for with the Registration Authority. 11. 12. 02.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: It has further come on record that of alleged eyewitness Anoop Singh AW1, registration number of the motorcycle on which the deceased and his cousin were travelling, has not been mentionedat the time of registration of DDR No.14 on 28.11.2009 PW1 has also failed to mention the make of the motorcycle. It is only by way of supplementary statement that Anoop Singh has mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle. It is also not denied by learned counsel for the appellants that the Insurance Policy as also the did not mention the registration number of the motorcycle. that the Insurance Policy did not show the motorcycle number 9044 was insured with it. It was only shown that the insured vehicle was Hero Honda Splendor regarding which registration number had been applied for with the Registration Authority. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No It has further come on record that as per the testimony of alleged eyewitness Anoop Singh AW1, registration number of the motorcycle on which the deceased and his cousin were travelling, has not at the time of registration of DDR No.14 on 28.11.2009. tion the make of the motorcycle. It is only by way of supplementary statement that Anoop Singh has mentioned the not denied by learned counsel for the appellants that the Insurance Policy as also the Registration of the vehicle did not mention the registration number of the motorcycle. It is that the Insurance Policy did not show the motorcycle number was insured with it. It was only shown that the insured a Splendor regarding which registration number had been applied for with the Registration Authority. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document