( 2026:HHC:12173 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 4209 of 2013 Reserved on: 31.03.2026 Date of decision: 17.04.2026 ________________________________________________ OIC Ltd. …..Appellant Versus Laxmi Devi & Ors. .…Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for, respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 & 8. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 10-MAC/2 of 2010, whereby the claim petition was allowed with costs and the petitioners were awarded 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) compensation of Rs. 11,26,280/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment to be made by respondent No. 1, Manga Ram (driver of the offending vehicle) & respondent No 2, Pritam Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), jointly and severally. However, respondent No. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to indemnify the award. 2. The brief facts of the case, as set up by the petitioners are that on 27.03.2009, Rajinder Kumar (since deceased) was travelling in Mahindra Pick-up bearing registration No. HP-18A-3917, as owner of the goods and when the aforesaid vehicle reached near Dhanoi Hotel on Dadahu-Sangrah Road, the same met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver, as a result of which Rajinder Kumar sustained serious injuries and died in PGI, Chandigarh. According, to the petitioners, prior to accident, the deceased was working as a milk vendor and agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 350/- to 400/- per day by selling milk and Rs. 60,000/- per 2 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) season from agriculture. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in their reply, admitted that deceased Rajinder Kumar was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and died in the accident. However, it was denied that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. According to them, the accident had occurred due to mechanical failure. 4. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company in its reply, contested the petition on the ground that deceased Rajinder Kumar was unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the offending vehicle was also being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has also been stated in the reply that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 & 2. 5. In rejoinder, contents of the reply have been 3 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) denied and that of the petition have been re-asserted. 6. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 05.04.2011:- “1. Whether Rajender Kumar died in the motor vehicles accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is determined in the affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, at the relevant time, if so, its effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 7. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the claim petition filed by the petitioners was allowed with costs and the petitioners were awarded compensation of Rs. 11,26,280/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment, to be made by respondent No. 1, Manga Ram (driver of the offending vehicle) & respondent No 2, Pritam 4 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), jointly and severally. However, respondent No. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to indemnify the award. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned award, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the instant appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record, carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, however, the learned Tribunal below had failed to frame any issue and had also failed to return any findings in detail on this aspect, therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal below. 11. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for respondents/claimaints contended that the learned Tribunal below did not commit any error while allowing the claim 5 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) petition. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-18A- 3917, which met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. So far as the findings returned by learned Tribunal below on issue No. 1, i.e. regarding negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver is concerned, the same have not been challenged by either of the parties. 13. The case of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and his risk was not covered in the policy, as such, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claim. Whereas, the case of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question being owner of the goods, as he was carrying two cement bags in the vehicle from Dadahu market to his Village Baunal. The case of the owner of the vehicle in question is also that the petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of 6 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) the goods, as he alongwith another person had engaged the vehicle for carrying their building material to their respective places after paying due rent. 14. The learned Tribunal below had returned its findings on the aspect of the gratuitous passenger in a slip- shod manner without discussing the evidence on record under issue No. 4, i.e. “Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3” 15. The findings returned by learned Tribunal below on aforesaid issue No. 4 are reproduced as under:- “25. Case of the respondent No. 3 is that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an authorized (sic) passenger. On the other hand case of the petitioners is that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods loaded in the said vehicle. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also admitted this fact. The RC of the vehicle, Ext. RW1/E shows that the seating capacity of this vehicle was 3. The evidence on record shows that at the time of this accident three persons including the driver were sitting in the offending vehicle. The respondent No. 3 has not produced any evidence to the contrary. 7 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) 26. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I hold that the respondent No. 3 has not been able to prove that the offending vehicle was also being plied by the respondents in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, this issue is held against the respondent No. 3.” 16. Since the appellant/Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger, which fact has been denied by the petitioners, as well as owner of the vehicle in question, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal below to have framed the specific issue on this aspect, as to whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident or not. After framing this issue, learned Tribunal below ought to have granted reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to lead evidence. However, in the instant case neither issue regarding gratuitous passenger has been framed nor any reasonable opportunity has been granted to the Insurance Company to prove its case on the said aspect and issue No. 4 has been decided in a cursory manner. Therefore, in the 8 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) facts and circumstances of the present case an additional issue is required to be framed as under:- “5-A Whether the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident ? OPR-3” 17. Hence, impugned award dated 09.09.2013 passed by learned Tribunal below is set aside and the case is remanded back to learned Tribunal below to decide the same afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to lead evidence to each of the parties on additional issue No. 5-A framed by this Court. 18. It is made clear that not more than two opportunities shall be granted to each of the parties to lead evidence on additional issue No. 5-A. 19. Since the accident pertains to the year 2009, the learned Tribunal below is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than 31.10.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal below on 18.05.2026. 9 ( 2026:HHC:12173 ) 20. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Tribunal below forthwith. 21. The appeal is disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 17th April, 2026 (raman) 10