Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Palvi Devi Wife Of Shri Pawan Kumar vs Sh. Balkar Singh Son Of Shri Gurmukh ... on 29 September, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO Nos.127-135 & 340-343 and -1-
C.R. Nos.1261-1266 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO Nos.127-135 & 340-343 and
C.R. Nos.1261-1266 of 1999
Date of Decision. 29.09.2010
Smt. Palvi Devi wife of Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of House
No.1494/5, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra
......Appellant
Versus
Sh. Balkar Singh son of Shri Gurmukh Singh and others
......Respondents
Present: None for the appellant
in FAO Nos.127-135 of 1999 and
for respondents in FAO Nos.340-343 &
C.R. Nos.1261-1266 of 1999.
Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company
in FAO Nos.340-343 and
C.R. Nos.1261-1266 of 1999 and
respondent in FAO Nos.127-135 of 1999.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. Out of 20 cases, 10 cases are by way of appeals and revision by the insurance company and the 10 appeals are at the instance of claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The claims are at the instance of the injured or representatives of deceased person, who were travelling in an Ambassador Car, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company. The facts elicited at the trial were that the driver of the car while he was FAO Nos.127-135 & 340-343 and -2- C.R. Nos.1261-1266 of 1999 attempting to overtake a rehra, ran over the mule that was pulling the rehra which get killed and dashed against the truck. In the manner in which the accident was narrated and with reference to certain photographs produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that it was the driver of the car, who was responsible for the accident and made the insurer liable. The claim at the instance of the representatives of the owner also failed by the finding of the Tribunal that since the accident resulted by the negligent driving of his own driving, the claimants could not succeed.
2. The only point urged in appeals and revisions filed by the insurance company is with reference to the liability on the ground that all of them were passengers in the private car and the policy of insurance covered the risk and bodily injury only to third parties that did not include the passengers and that further extra premium had been paid only to cover the risk for the driver. The passengers in the car cannot be treated as third parties and in the absence of specific insurance cover, there would have been no cause of action against the insurer. The liability of an insurance company for passengers in a private car, which is insured only for third party risk has been dealt with by this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and others in FAO No.1648 of 2008 decided on 18.8.2010. This Court has found by reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpabai Parashottam Udeshi & Ors Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1735 that the insurer's liability under the Act FAO Nos.127-135 & 340-343 and -3- C.R. Nos.1261-1266 of 1999 Policy cannot arise for risk to passengers in the private vehicle. The liability cast on the insurance company is, under the circumstances, set aside and the appeals and revisions filed by the insurer in case Nos.340-343 and 1261-1266 of 1999 are allowed.
3. There is no representations for the claimants in all the appeals filed by them and the appeals viz., FAO Nos.127 to 135 are dismissed for default and non-prosecution.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE September 29, 2010 Pankaj*