IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.990 of 2001 Date of decision:28.06.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sukhjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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 points that arise for consideration before this Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is (i) the deceased was himself the tort feasor by driving the vehicle and causing the accident. Hence, the claim under Section 163-A under strict liability norms does not arise; (ii) the second point urged is that in respect of claims regarding death or injury of persons whose income is more than 40,000, the recovery itself is not possible under Section 163-A of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. FAO No.990 of 2001 - 2 - 2. As regards the contention that the strict liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company for the death of a person, who was himself the tort feasor, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited-2009 ACJ 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the legal representatives of a person driving the vehicle who was himself the tort feasor will have no cause of action under Section 163-A. However, the point urged in the appeal is also governed by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda-JT 2004 (4) SC 83, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 67 that if the annual income of the person involved was Rs.40,000/- and more, the claims would be required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act and Section 163 will not apply. The appellant is bound to succeed. The decision of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.06.2010 sanjeev