2026:HHC:846 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition Nos.124 & 125 of 2025 Date of decision: 02.01.2026 1. Review Petition No.124 of 2025 Rajinder Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus Pushap Lata & Ors. …Respondents. 2. Review Petition No.125 of 2025 Rajinder Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus Vijay Kumari & Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate in both petitions. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) These review petitions, arising out of one and the same judgment dated 26.09.2025 passed in FAO (MVA) No.64 of 2022 (Rajinder Kumar vs. Vijay Kumari & Ors.) along with FAO (MVA) No.45 of 2022 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushap Lata & Ors.), are being decided by this common order. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. Petitioner is owner of the vehicle, in both petitions, a Nano Car No.HP-68A-Temp.5592 involved in the accident. 3. Admittedly, at the time of purchase of the vehicle, it was temporarily registered. However, it was never permanently registered within 30 days of the purchase or even thereafter till the date of the accident. 4. The predecessor-in-interest of the claimants expired in the accident involving the aforesaid vehicle, which occurred on 02.10.2015. Death of the predecessors-in-interest of the claimants is also not in dispute. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to register the vehicle permanently with the concerned Registration and Licensing Authority, but though he failed to do so, however, the insurance policy existing between the petitioner and the Insurance Company was never cancelled by the insurance Company, despite having knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was not permanently registered even after expiry of the 30-day period available to the owner for registration of the vehicle. 6. It has been submitted that in absence of cancellation of Insurance Policy, even after expiry of temporary registration, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation for existence of contract of insurance policy between owner and the Insurance Company and, -3- therefore, it has been prayed that impugned judgment deserves to be reviewed by fastening liability upon the Insurance Company instead of absolving the Insurance Company from liability to indemnify the owner- petitioner with right to recover the compensation from owner after paying it to the claimants. 7. The aforesaid issue has already been considered in the impugned judgment and the liability upon owner, with right to recover to Insurance Company after payment of compensation to claimants, has been determined in the light of ratio of the judgment passed by Apex Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 324. Therefore, this plea for reviewing the order is not sustainable. 8. Another plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the victims were travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers and were known to the owner of the vehicle, and that, being superior officers of the petitioner in the Corporation in which all of them were serving, they had compelled the petitioner to drive the vehicle carrying them to attend a meeting at Shimla. Therefore, victims were and are responsible for the incident and thus, their successors-in-interest are not entitled for any compensation from petitioner-owner, who was acting under command of his superiors, but Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the petitioner-owner. -4- 9. The plea that victims had compelled the petitioner to drive the vehicle without registration to carry them to Shimla has been taken for the first time, as no such plea was ever taken at the time of adjudication of the claim petition before the MACT or during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. 10. The status of the victims, whether as gratuitous passengers or otherwise, would not have any impact on the liability and right to pay and recover the compensation, because, in view of the judgment in Narinder Singh (supra), plying a vehicle without registration amounts to fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by the owner. Therefore, the liability and/or right to recover shall remain the same, and this plea is also not sustainable for seeking review of the impugned judgment. 11. No other points urged. 12. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the review petitions and, accordingly, the review petitions, along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are dismissed. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 2nd January, 2026 (Pardeep)