FAO No.592 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.592 of 2008 Date of Decision:23.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Santro Devi and others .....Respondents And FAO No.593 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Mamta and others .....Respondents And FAO No.594 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Yashpal and others .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan Present: Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... K. Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of FAO Nos.592, 593 and 594 of 2008 which have arisen due to the same accident. 2. The issues for consideration in the appeal are the liability of the insurer for violation of the terms of the policy regarding:- (i) That the user of the vehicle was for a commercial purpose, when the insurance cover was for user of the vehicle for a private purpose. (ii) That the driver did not have a valid driving licence. FAO No.592 of 2008 2 3. The Tribunal held the insurer liable adverting to the evidence that the claimants had not stated that they had paid any fare to the driver or the owner. As regards the driving licence, the Tribunal found that the versions in consistent and not trustworthy to accept the defence version of the insurer. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company could contend that it was bound to cover the risk by compulsory insurance provided under Section 147 only to persons employed by the owner and gratuitous passengers shall not be entitled to make a claim against the insurer. The complaint given to the police immediately after the accident contained an admission that all the passengers paid hire charges and the vehicle was being used as a taxi car. In such event, the user of the vehicle was proved to be a commercial purpose, which was not authorized under the terms of the policy, consequently the insurer shall not be liable. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that with reference to the driving licence, it had expired on 05.03.2002 itself when the accident took place on 06.06.2003. Licence was got renewed on 12.09.2003 to be effective till 11.09.2008. Hardeep Singh, Driving Licensing Clerk, SDM Office, Sirsa produced the register which showed that renewal was made only on 21.08.2007 and during the intervening period i.e. 05.03.2002 to 20.08.2007 the same was not renewed. The verification report which was also produced showed that the licence had been renewed from 12.09.2003 valid to 11.09.2008. This difference in dates of renewal was taken by the Tribunal as revealing that the register of the office of SDM, Sirsa was not dependable. 6. The insured will not be entitled to obtain any indemnity in a case of use of either private or a taxi car. If it was only a private vehicle the passengers of the vehicle would not be entitled to any insurance cover. On the other hand, if they were fare paying FAO No.592 of 2008 3 passengers, it was not authorized. In either case the claimants shall have no remedy against the Insurance Company. The fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence was proved in its defence by producing the evidence from the Licensing Authority and the evidence of a Clerk from the said office. The award passed by the Tribunal making the insurer liable was clearly unjustified. 6. It is not possible to ascertain whether the amount deposited by the insurer has been withdrawn by the claimants or not. If already withdrawn, the amount shall be recovered only against the insurer. The appeals are allowed, the award passed by the Tribunal dated 28.11.2007 is set aside. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23rd July, 2010 sharmila