(O&M) Paramjit Kaur And Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 6463 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) Paramjit Kaur And Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 19 December, 2025

Author: Vikas Suri

Bench: Vikas Suri

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

207                                      FAO-2064-2006 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision: 19.12.2025


Paramjit Kaur and others

                                                              ...Appellants
                   Versus


National Insurance Company Limited
                                                             ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:    Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellants.

            Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the respondent.

                                 *****

VIKAS SURI, J.(Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award

dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim

petition filed by the claimant/appellants on account of the death of

Sarwan Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.08.2001,

was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the claimant-appellants had preferred a claim

petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,

'MV Act') on account of death of the husband of appellant No.1 and

father of the other appellants. It was alleged that on 02.08.2021,

1 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -2-

deceased Sarwan Kumar was returning to his village on his motorcycle

bearing registration No.PB-58A-6983 and around 8.30 PM, he suddenly

applied brakes of his motorcycle, causing the same to skid due to a

slippery road. Upon falling from the motorcycle, the deceased suffered

head injury. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where he died

after some time. DDR No.45 dated 03.08.2001 was recorded by the

police and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. It

was further averred that one Karnail Chand was following the deceased

on a separate scooter, and had reported to the police the incident in

which deceased Sarwan Kumar suffered head injury and succumbed to it

despite medical aid. The deceased was riding his own motorcycle and

hence, the claim petition is directed against the insurer of the

motorcycle, i.e. respondent-insurance company.

2.1 Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondent contested

the same by filing reply. By way of preliminary objection, the

maintainability of the claim petition was challenged on the ground that

the deceased was himself owner of the offending motorcycle and as

such, was not a third party; and as per terms and conditions of the

insurance policy, he cannot take advantage of the risk cover extended to

a third party. The existence of a valid driving license was also disputed.

2.2 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed:

"1) Whether Sarwan Kumar died in vehicular accident on 2.8.2001 at about 7.30.Ρ.Μ. in the area of Pull Drain of village Allechak while himself driving Hero Honda such

2 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -3-

the No.PB-58-A 6983 and as claim petition maintainable? OPR

2) Whether Sarwan Kumar deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR

3) Whether the claimants-applicants entitled to claim are compensation ? If so, how much and against whom? OPA

4) Relief."

2.3 The parties led their respective evidence and on

consideration of the pleadings, the evidence produced and the respective

contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal

dismissed the claim petition by observing as under:

"In the case in hand also, deceased was owner of the insured offending motor cycle and has not taken any personal accident insurance because insurance policy totally is as silent about this aspect and such the respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation on account of death of the owner of the insured Motor Cycle and the claim-petition is not maintainable claimants are entitled to recover compensation from the respondent-Insurance Company."

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the claimant-appellants

preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the

findings returned by the Tribunal regarding non-payment of premium of

Rs.15/- to cover the risk of personal accident of the insured, is not made

out as a perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.R1) would show that there is

no column therein to reflect such a premium. It is further submitted that

3 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -4-

the risk of personal accident is deemed to be covered under own damage,

for which the insurance premium stands paid. It is also contended on

behalf of the appellants that the claim petition is under Section 163-A of

the MV Act which is based on the 'no fault liability' principle and

neglect or default of driver/owner of the offending vehicle is not to be

established for award of compensation under the said provision.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance

company has defended the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the respondent would further argue that owner of

the offending vehicle cannot be a claimant under the insurance policy

unless and until specific premium for the same has been paid. He would

refer to the insurance policy (Ex.R1) to submit that no additional

premium has been paid for personal accident coverage. It is further

submitted that the accident in question took place on 02.08.2001, i.e.

prior to the issuance of General Regulation 36 of India Motor Tariff

(IMT) 2022, which mandates Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA)

cover for owner/driver under both liability only and package policies.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

able assistance perused the record.

7. The question which arises for consideration is that the

deceased himself being the owner of the offending vehicle, whether his

legal heirs could maintain a petition for compensation under Section

163-A of the MV Act.

8. The said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble

4 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -5-

Supreme Court of India in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Jhuma

Saha and others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263, was considering a

similar case where the owner himself was driving the vehicle, which due

to his negligence dashed with a tree on the roadside as a result of which

he died. Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that the claim petition

filed by his legal representatives was not maintainable. The relevant

portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

"10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.

11. Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise.

12. In Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 553, it is stated as follows:

"8. Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.

5 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -6-

* * *

10. In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs 4989 paid under the heading 'Own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury. Under the heading 'Own damage', the words 'premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories' appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case there is no such insurance."

9. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi

and others, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736, it was held that Section 163-

A of the MV Act would not have any application in regard to an accident

wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Reliance

upon Jhuma Saha's case (supra) was placed and it was held thus:

"11. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to"

10. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ashalata Bhowmik

and others, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 801. Like in the present case, the

deceased was the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle in question.

No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was

responsible for the accident. It was held that the deceased being the

6 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -7-

owner of the offending vehicle was not the third party within the

meaning of MV Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of

rash and negligent driving and as such, a claimant cannot maintain a

claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence. He can nevertheless

make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, it was

concluded that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have

maintained the claim petition under the MV Act.

11. Applying the aforesaid settled principle of law, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance

Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, held that a claim

petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act was not maintainable by the

borrower/permissive user of vehicle against the owner and/or insurer of

the said vehicle, as such borrower/permissive user steps into shoes of

owner, and the owner cannot be both claimant and recipient. It was, thus,

held that the owner/borrower/permissive user cannot maintain a claim

for compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act in relation to the

use of their own vehicle. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in

Ningamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13

SCC 710, wherein, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was

borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing

against a bullock cart, i.e. without involving any other motor vehicle.

The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act by the

legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the

motorcycle, which at the time of accident was being driven by the

7 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -8-

deceased. The Apex Court held that since the deceased had stepped into

shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the MV Act cannot

apply where the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Thus, the legal

representatives of the deceased could not have claimed compensation

under Section 163-A of the MV Act. It also deserves to be noticed here

that in Ramkhiladi's case (supra), the accident occurred on 02.10.2006

by which date General Regulation 36 of the India Motor Tariff, 2002 had

come into operation mandating Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA)

cover for the owner-driver of an insured vehicle, and a sum of Rs.1 lakh

had been specified therein as Capital Sum Insured (CSI) for two

wheelers.

12. However, in the case at hand, the aforesaid General

Regulation is not applicable as the accident occurred prior to coming

into force of the aforesaid regulation.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to

show any material evidence on record or statutory provision to make out

a ground for this Court to interfere in the impugned award passed by the

Tribunal. Concededly, even the insurance premium for personal accident

cover for passengers has not been paid. In the absence of separate

insurance premium having been paid for personal accident cover

pertaining to insurance coverage period before Compulsory Personal

Accident (CPA) cover for owner-driver, under both liability only and

Package policies, was made mandatory by the Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority of India (IRDAI), no benefit can be passed on to

8 of 9

FAO-2064-2006 (O&M) -9-

the heirs of the deceased owner-driver.

14. In the light of the aforesaid and the settled principle of law,

the claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, could not

have maintained the claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act

in the absence of the terms of the contract of insurance covering personal

accident of the owner. No illegality or perversity has been shown to have

occurred on facts or in law, while passing the impugned award.

15. In aftermath, the present appeal is dismissed.

                                                     (VIKAS SURI)
 December 19, 2025                                      JUDGE
 sumit.k



            Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes / No
            Whether Reportable :              Yes / No




                               9 of 9