F.A.O.NO. 507 OF 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 507 OF 2003 Date of decision:16th September, 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. SCO NO. 109-111, Surindera Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager .......Appellant Versus Ranbir Kaur and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, 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 on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the person who died was a driver of a scooter which belonged to her father. She slipped from the scooter and fell down, succumbed to the injuries. The contention of the insurer is that the claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') can not survive at the instance of the claimant who died on account of her own negligent driving. The driver merely stepped into the shoes of the owner and in such a case no liability could be fastened either on the owner or the F.A.O.NO. 507 OF 2003 2 insurer in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2009) ACJ 2020. 2. The question of liability on the insurer, even in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled as Bimlesh and others versus New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 7 SCALE 732, directed that the policy shall be examined whether there exists any specific terms of the policy to cover such a risk. I have gone through the terms of the policy and I find that it is Type B policy that covers the risk for liability to public on a basic premium but there is no insurance cover for the driver of the motor cycle. The claim petition cannot be sustained against the insurer. The award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and it is set aside. The appeal is allowed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 16th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik