IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2080 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:19.11.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Punjab Oil Mills Private Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ---- 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 by the Insurance Company challenging the issue of liability for damage caused to the vehicle. The Tribunal assessed Rs.80,900/- for damage to third party property and directed the insurer to make the payment. It is contended by the insurer in appeal that the liability to third party for property damage is restricted under the Act to Rs.6,000/- and that amount in excess shall be recovered only against the owner. 2. A restriction of liability is invariably a matter of evidence that should be supported by pleadings. I do not find the plea that the liability to a third party was restricted under the terms of policy to what the statute compulsorily provides. The learned counsel produced before FAO No.2080 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - me a copy of the policy. The policy contains, inter alia, two clauses in printed column for third party liability for driver and cleaner and increased third party damages under Section 1. Against the respective columns, amount of Rs.30/- and 60/- have been filled up. Beneath the liability for third party it is hand written thus, “four coolies”. The learned counsel contends that Rs.60/- has been collected only for premium to cover the risk for collies. This ought to have been a subject of evidence at the trial and it cannot be a matter of assumption. I cannot permit the insurer to plead for a restriction when the terms of policy do not clearly establish the same and what would be a matter of evidence at the trial. 3. However, I find that the award includes a claim of Rs.10,000/- said to have been paid to one Harbhajan Singh to look after repair work. This is not really for effecting repairs but for keeping watch to the vehicle. I cannot allow for Rs.10,000/- as going towards damage to property. The award shall be, therefore, reduced by Rs.10,000/- and that is the only aspect that the appellant can hope to secure to its benefit. 4. The award of the Tribunal is modified to restrict liability of the insurer to Rs.70,900/- instead of Rs.80,900/-. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and the award is confirmed in all other respects. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.11.2010 sanjeev