IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1856 of 1995 Date of decision:16.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Naresh Kapoor and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, 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 Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the award on the question that the owner/insured had not been made as a party and hence the insurer could not have been also made liable. At the trial, the RC book and the cover note had been filed which showed that the car involved in the accident was in the name of M/s S.V. Woolen & Silk Mills and the policy of insurance had also been issued only in its name. The claimant had described the 1st respondent as Neeraj Soni, owner and partner of firm M/s S.V. Woolen & Silk Mills. In my view, it was more a case where the appropriate description of the 1st respondent should FAO No.1856 of 1995 - 2 - have been M/s S.V. Woolen & Silk Mills through partner Neeraj Soni. Unlike a Company which is a juristic person, a partnership operates only through persons and there is even a personal liability of the partner for every liability of the partnership. The claim cannot suffer by what is obviously a technical error. The accident itself is not denied nor the policy of insurance denied. If the liability is sure, the misdescription in a petition cannot exonerate the Insurance Company of its liability. 2. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.08.2010 sanjeev