NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANR.

h475
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU





MA No.80/2017


R eserved on: 03.09.2026
Pronounced on: 14.09.2026
Uploaded on : 14.09.2026



National Insurance Company Limited through its Incharge
TP-Hub, Shalimar Building, Shalimar Road, Jammu …...Appellant(s)



Through:-Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate
V/s


1. Gurcharan Singh S/o Late S. Jaswant Singh
Resident of Ward No.7, Mohalla Kaman Khan,
Poonch City

2. Chandandeep Singh son of S. Gurcharan Singh
Resident of Ward No.7, Mohalla Kaman Khan, Poonch City

...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Dheeraj Choudhary, Advocate with
Mr. Ronik Sharma, Advocate


Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE



JUDGMENT

1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
st
is directed against an award dated 31 January, 2017 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch (herein after referred to be
as the “Tribunal”) in File No.6/Claim titled Gurcharan Singh v.
National Insurance Company Ltd and another, whereby an award of
Rs.5,70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of institution of the claim petition till realization in favour of the
claimant/respondent.

MA No.80/2017 2




rd
3. On 23 July, 2013, respondent No.1 while travelling in his
Wagon-R bearing Registration No.JK12/5891 was going to
Jammu from Poonch. When reached at Pathi Bawali, Jammu-
Poonch National Highway near Chingus, due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, an accident
happened, as a result respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries
i.e. fracture left humerus commuted. The total disability of
respondent No.1 was assessed at 50%. A claim petition came to
be filed by the claimant/respondent No.1 claiming compensation
for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claim was
opposed by the appellant-Insurance company on the ground that
the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving license, the vehicle was being plied in violation of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded
that since the claimant himself is the owner of the vehicle, he
cannot claim compensation.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed
following issues:-
“1. Whether the petitioner suffered injury and disablement
due to the accident of vehicle No.JK12-5891 (Vagnar)
on 23.7.2013 at Chingus, Rajouri-Poonch road due to
rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 ?
OPP

MA No.80/2017 3




2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the
petitioner is entitled for compensation, if yes, to what
extent? OPP
3. Whether the claim of the petitioner is not covered by the
rd
Insurance policy of respondent No.1 for 3 party risk, if
yes, how? OPR-1”
3. In order to substantiate his claim, respondent No.1 examined Ujager
Singh, Krishan Singh and Dr. Tariq Mehmood, an Ortho Consultant,
besides himself entering in the witness box. However, the appellant-
Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal.
4. After hearing both the sides, considering the evidence and material
on record, the Tribunal vide award impugned dated 31.01.2017,
awarded compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- in favour of respondent
No.1 with the following breakup:-
Medical expenses= Rs.4,00,000/-
Boarding lodging plus special diet Rs. 60,000/-
Mental agony and torture
including pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Future care and treatment Rs.60,000/-

5. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved of the impugned
award preferred the present appeal against the impugned award.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance assails the impugned
award primarily on the ground that the insured does not fall within
the definition of “third party”, therefore, respondent No.1 is not

MA No.80/2017 4




entitled to any compensation. Reliance has been placed on various
judgments of High Courts including a judgment of this Court.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1
submits that the impugned award is legally perfect and does not call
for any interference by this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. It is an admitted position that the claimant/respondent No.1 is the
owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by another
person. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the vehicle. The claimant being the owner of the offending vehicle
was not a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is,
whether an owner of the vehicle, who sustained injuries while
travelling in his own vehicle as a passenger, is entitled to
compensation?
10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, we
need to examine the Insurance Policy, which was in force at the time
of accident. A bare perusal of the Insurance Policy, which is part of
the record, indicates that the appellant-insurance company has
charged total premium of Rs.7599/-, which includes Rs.100/- on

MA No.80/2017 5




account of compulsory PA cover Premium and Rs.250/- on account
of additional PA cover premium for five persons.
11. It appears that an additional premium of Rs.250/- has been paid for
personal accident for other five persons in addition to the premium.
The vehicle in question was having seating capacity of five persons
and this is not the case of the appellant-insurance company that at the
time of accident, more than five persons were travelling in the
offending vehicle. Since the owner himself was covered under the
policy to get compensation as he had paid additional premium and
that he was not driving the vehicle in question, which was validly
insured, the claimant cannot be denied compensation merely on the
ground that being owner of the vehicle he is not entitled to seek
compensation.
12. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Thungala Dhana
Laxmi and others, 2026 INSC 793 , the Supreme Court while
considering the issue, whether there should be a uniform motor-
vehicle policy structure covering all occupants of a vehicle, in
addition to the statutorily mandated coverage of third party risks, has
held that insurance companies are liable to compensate for any
occupant in the vehicle under a comprehensive/package policy. Para
34 of the judgment is relevant for our purposes and is reproduced
hereunder:-

MA No.80/2017 6




“34.It is well settled that in matters concerning motor
accident claims, Courts should not adopt a typer-
technical approach. As rightly submitted by the
claimant-respondents, in accordance with the circular of
the IRDA dated 16.11.2009, insurance companies are
liable to compensate for any occupant in the vehicle
under a comprehensive/package policy. Consequently,
we find no reason to disagree with the reasoning
adopted by the High Court. The present civil appeal is
dismissed to that extent. (See) Surekha and others v.
Santosh and others, (2021) 16 SCC 467 .”
13. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, a compressive or
package motor insurance policy covers the vehicle owner and all
occupants. The insurance company is liable to compensate for any
occupant. An occupant in a car means any person who is inside,
entering, or exiting the vehicle. Since the insurance policy in the
present case was a comprehensive policy, as such, the plea raised by
the Insurance Company to assail the award of the Tribunal deserves
to be rejected.
14. With regard to the compensation, since the claimant was a pensioner,
as such nothing was awarded on account of loss of income and only
medical expenditure and other expenses, which, by no stretch of
imagination can be said to be excessive or exorbitant.
15. In view of the above, the appeal found to be without any merit,
hence dismissed. The appellant-Insurance company to satisfy the

MA No.80/2017 7




award and the deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal before
Registry of this Court, if not already deposited, within a period of
two months, which shall be released in favour of the claimant-
respondent No.1 on proper identification and verification.

(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)
Judge


Jammu.
14.09.2026
Vinod.
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No

Vijay Kumar
2026.09.14 13:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document