IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1256 of 2005 Date of decision:01.09.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Pirya Yadav and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, 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 on the ground that a petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable by virtue of the fact that the deceased was supposed to be earning more than Rs.40,000/- per annum and in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni & others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited-2004 ACJ 934 such a petition would not be possible for a person whose income was more than the ceiling prescribed under Schedule-II. FAO No.1256 of 2005 - 2 - 2. Since this is a case of a claim by the representatives of the deceased who had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and had involved himself in the accident, the issue that has to be seen is whether there is any term of the policy that will make the insurer liable for the death that arose by the use of the motor vehicle even without reference to Section 163-A, if the claim were to be entertained as under Section 166 of the MV Act, it ought to result in a situation where the insurer will become liable in a case where the policy covers the risk to a driver of the vehicle also. The terms of the policy are to cover the risk for any person including “persons or classes of persons entitled to drive; -any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving licence to drive the category of vehicle.......” The policy covers the risk to a driver as well and the driver as per definition of Section 2(9) of the MV Act includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle”. It is an inclusive definition and does not limit its application to only paid drivers. If the policy was a comprehensive insurance cover that covered the risk to a driver, it shall become possible for such a person to leave a trail of a valid cause of action for the legal representatives to pursue under the MV Act. 3. The claim is, therefore, tenable, though not under Section 163-A, under Section 166 itself. The Tribunal has awarded a modest compensation of Rs.3,83,733/- slashing down the income of Rs.40,000/- as the ceiling prescribed under Section 163-A. There is no scope for intervention even as regards the quantum of compensation. FAO No.1256 of 2005 - 3- 4. The award is confirmed though for different reasons and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.09.2010 sanjeev