F.A.O. NO. 3483 OF 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. NO. 3483 OF 2009(O&M) Date of decision:8th July, 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Parvati Devi and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO.3484 OF 2009(O&M) National Insurance Col Ltd. Versus Prem Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. These two appeals arise against claims in the same accident resulting in death of motor cyclist and the pillion rider. F.A.O. NO. 3483 OF 2009(O&M) 2 The Tribunal found in the claim by the pillion rider that the allegation was that the motor cyclist was negligent. In the claim by representatives of the motor cyclist the claim was made under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as the case of an accident resulting by a negligent driving by the motor cyclist who dashed against a cattle that resulted in death of both the persons. 2. If the vehicle was driven by a motor cyclist by borrowing a vehicle and he met with an accident, a representative of the motor cyclist cannot have a cause of action under Section 163(A) of the Act for a situation of negligent act of the motor cyclist. The compensation on structured formula under Section 163(A) of the Act under strict liability norm cannot be understood as applying to cases where the motor cyclist or his representative was the tort feasor himself. The requirement of not having to prove negligence in a claim under Section 163(A) of the Act ought not to be understood as making possible of claim by tort feasor. 3. The representatives of pillion rider in a case of an Act/ Policy cannot also have a claim against the insurer. A pillion rider who could be said to be “any person” being carried in a person will have a right of action only if there was a comprehensive cover that provides for the risk of “any person” who is died or injured in an accident involving a motor vehicle. An act policy under Section 147 of the Act does not extend to cover the risk of a pillion rider who cannot be said to be F.A.O. NO. 3483 OF 2009(O&M) 3 a 'third party'. The claim on behalf of the representatives of the pillion rider is also not therefore, tenable. 4. The award passed in respect of the claim petitions against the insurer are not legally sustainable. The award is set aside and therefore, appeals are allowed. If any portion of the award has already been satisfied by the Insurer at the instance of claimants, the Insurer will not recover the amounts from the claimants but shall proceed to recover only against the insured. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 8th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik