F.A.O.NO. 5015 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 5015 OF 2002 Date of decision:1st September, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Surendera Building, S.C.O. No. 109-111, Sector-17, Chandigarh through its Assistant/Deputy Manager. .......Appellant Versus Balwinder Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the deceased was an owner cum driver of a scooter, who while applying brake skidded and fell down from the vehicle and got killed. The claim was made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The assumption was that Section 163(A) of the Act did not merely require negligence, to be proved; it also made possible for a person who himself had been negligent in causing the accident to pursue the claim under Section 163(A) of the Act. F.A.O.NO. 5015 OF 2002 2 There is no such law. The principle of strict liability under Section 163(A) of the Act cannot be extended to cover risks of bodily injury or death arising out of one's own fault. The claim for recovering against the insurer will be possible only in cases of specific cover to such type of situations. In this case, the policy of insurance was an Act Policy and there is no requirement under Section 147 of the Act to take a policy for one's own risk. The petition against the insurer was clearly untenable and the award passed against the insurer cannot survive. 2. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 1st September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik