FAO No.424 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.424 of 2007 Date of Decision. 29.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office in SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney. .........Appellant Versus Smt. Phoolwati widow of Rati Ram, resident of village Goriawas, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon, Haryana and others .......Respondents Present: Mr.Ravinder Aroa, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 insurance company challenges the award passed on the ground that the deceased was travelling in a tractor, having taken a lift to go to his village. The accident is said to have taken place when the tyre got punctured and the vehicle turned turtle. The policy of insurance is produced before the Court to say that vehicle itself could be used only for agriculture purpose. The terms of policy were restricted for agriculture purpose and the tractor could not have been used for carrying passengers. The insurance policy was not available to cover the risk of a passenger travelling in the FAO No.424 of 2007 -2- tractor. The Tribunal has made the insurer liable on the only ground that there was an insurance policy. The Tribunal further held that the accident was not due to any negligence of the driver but it was on account of the sudden bursting of the tyre and therefore, the insurance company would be liable. The situation, which the Tribunal was addressing was even worst off to make the insurer liable, for if there was no negligence at all even the owner of the vehicle would not have been made liable and consequently the insurer cannot also be made liable. The issue was not whether there was a policy of insurance or not but the issue was whether such policy covered the risk for a passenger, who was travelling in a tractor. There is no such insurance cover and the insurance company could not have been made liable at all. 2. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Pankaj*