IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 463 of 2004. Decided on September 28, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Santosh Devi & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant Sh. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For the respondent Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award, dated 23.12.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby it has been ordered that the appellant, in its capacity as insurer of the vehicle, is liable to pay compensation money. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that it is not liable to pay the claim, because the vehicle was being driven, in violation of such terms and conditions of the Policy, which an Insurance Company, can incorporate Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - in the Policy and raise as defence under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Though, in the grounds of appeal, it is alleged that there is violation of three conditions of the Policy, namely, vehicle was being driven by a person, not having a valid and effective driving licence, the person, for whose death compensation has been claimed, was travelling for hire or reward in the vehicle, which was a private car and the vehicle having been transferred by the person, who had purchased the Policy prior to the accident, and the transfer had not been intimated to the Insurance Company and so, it is not liable to pay compensation money, yet, while arguing the case, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has confined himself to only one such ground, viz. the deceased was travelling for hire or reward, though the vehicle was insured only as a private car and also, it was registered as a private car. 4. Admittedly, the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle, that is to say, that it could not have been used for carrying passengers for hire or reward and, therefore, such passengers could not be treated as third party, the way passengers travelling by buses and other vehicles, are. Insurance Policy, Ex. RW-1/A, proved by RW-1 S.C.Katoch and RW-2 Pawan Kumar, - 3 - shows that vehicle was registered as a private vehicle, not meant for carriage of passengers, because no premium for carriage of passengers, had been charged. Now, if that is so, it was simply a statutory policy, covering the risk of only third party, i.e. persons, other than those travelling by the vehicle. Also, there was no permit for plying the vehicle for hire or reward and, thus, there is breach of condition of the policy, excluding the use of vehicle for hire or reward. 5. Learned Tribunal has also held that the vehicle was being used for carriage of passengers, for hire or reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation, but at the same time, it has ordered the Insurance Company, i.e. the appellant, to pay compensation, with the observation that the deceased was a third party and so, her risk was covered by the Policy. View, taken by learned Tribunal, is not correct, because the risk of a person, travelling by a private vehicle, not registered for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, is not covered, even if he or she is travelling for hire or reward, unless extra premium is charged, for covering his/her risk, which in this case, had not been charged. 6. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted, impugned award, to the extent it holds the - 4 - appellant liable for payment of compensation, is set aside. Compensation money, if deposited by the appellant and lying un-disbursed, whether in the Registry of this Court or with the Accident Claims Tribunal, shall be refunded to it and the claimant- respondent shall be entitled to recover the same, from the owner and the driver, whose liability to satisfy the award, is joint and several. In case the compensation money, deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, or any part thereof, has been disbursed to the claimant, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, for which it may not file a separate case, but recover it by executing this very order. September 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.