IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2043 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:21.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Mahi Pal and another ...Respondents Present: Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Ravinder Arora, 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) 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the liability cast on the insurer for the injury sustained by the driver of a car, who while avoiding to hit a cow, dashed against a tree, and brought upon himself and to a passenger, travelling in the car, grievous injuries. Two claim petitions have been filed under Section 163-A. The Tribunal determined compensation and made the insurer liable both for the claims made by the driver and the passenger. The Insurance Company is in appeal only against the award passed for the injuries sustained by the driver and is reported to have satisfied the claim by the passenger in the car. 2. The learned counsel for the insurer would contend that FAO No.2043 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - under the scheme of Section 163-A itself, a person cannot make the insurer liable for his own negligent driving. While as a principle of law, it is proper to accept such a contention, it has to be still seen whether the terms of the policy cover the risk of such injury to a driver. A driver, who is employed as a workman, is anyway entitled to a cover under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the insurer shall become liable for an accident by the use of a motor vehicle under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act read with Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, the premium itself has been paid for the risk to a driver as well and, therefore, it ought to shoulder the claim made by the driver also. It is not a case of providing indemnity for an act of a driver but a payment of premium for the bodily injury or death of a driver that covers the risk which the driver has suffered by his own act. The award of compensation against the insurer, under such a circumstance, is, therefore, justified and I see no reason to interfere with the award 3. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.09.2010 sanjeev