Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Gurpreet Kaur And Others on 9 July, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.32 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision:09.07.2010
United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant
versus
Smt. Gurpreet Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
----
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)
CM No.278-CII of 2010
1. Delay of 15 days in refilling the appeal, is condoned. FAO No.32 of 2010
2. The appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed against it on a plea by the legal representatives of the deceased that the motorcycle in which he was travelling dashed against the trolley and he had died. The owner of the motorcycle and the insured alone were made parties and the tractor-trolley against which it was dashed had not been made party. The issue as to whether the insured could be made liable in a situation of a person borrowing a motorcycle FAO No.32 of 2010 (O&M) -2- from the owner and when a claim is made under Section 163-A has been answered by the Insurance Company in Ningamma and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited-2009 (4) PLR 796 when it held that the legal representatives of a person driving the vehicle after borrowing it from the owner and met with an accident involving any other vehicle would not be entitled to a claim under Section 163-A. In this case, although the vehicle is supposed to have dashed against a tractor-trolley, the other vehicle has not been added as a party nor any attempt to attribute negligence of the other vehicle has been made. The claim against the insured was clearly untenable in the light of the judgment referred to above. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
3. The claimants would be at liberty to take appropriate independent proceeding for lodging a claim against the tractor-trolley said to have involved in the accident and if it is established that there was negligence on the part of other vehicle, the claimants would be at liberty to take recourse for compensation against any other offending vehicle. Subject to these observations, the appeal is allowed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.07.2010 sanjeev