FAO No.66 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.66 of 1996 Date of Decision. 29.06.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney. ........Appellant Versus Shri Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Mahavir Parshad, Brahman, R/o Dhani Bhatota, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mohindergarh and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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. The appeal is filed by the insurance company denying the liability on the ground that the vehicle was private one and as per the terms of the policy, there had been an exclusion of liability for persons, who had been carried for hire or reward. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the insurance company on a fundamental objection that the copy of the policy that had been filed was not duly authenticated and it could not be relied on. 2. I take the copy of the insurance policy to be worthy of acceptance to examine the case whether the insurance company FAO No.66 of 1996 -2- could so exclude the liability. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle had been insured for comprehensive risks but the denial of liability is on the basis that there had been a breach of condition of the policy in carrying passengers for hire. The petitioner's statement in the petition is that he was travelling in the Matador Van to visit a relative and it is not shown to me that any evidence was elicited from him that the claimant was availing the transport for hire. The learned counsel for the insurance company wants me to make an inference from the fact that a co-passenger in the vehicle had been examined where it was elicited in the cross-examination that more than 20 persons were travelling in the van. He points out that the owner of the vehicle had filed written statement denying that the petitioner was even travelling in the vehicle. Neither a denial by the owner nor an admission that more than 20 persons were travelling could result in an inference that the vehicle was being used for hire. It is essentially a matter of proof of fact. The insurance company had failed to establish such a fact and the award passed against the insurance company, under the circumstances, cannot be seen to be wrong in any way. 3. The appeal filed by the insurance company is therefore dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 29, 2010 Pankaj*