F.A.O.NO. 1262OF 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1262 OF 1991 Date of decision:6th August, 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Manjit Singh Chawla and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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 challenges the award passed against it on the ground that at the relevant point of time when the accident took place on 31.05.1989, the insured's vehicle had been requisitioned by the State of Punjab for security reasons for deployment of CRPF personnel and the liability for any accident during the time when the vehicle was wholly under the control of the State the insurer shall not be liable. It is contended that the liability could be imposed only on the State. 2. At the time of trial the insurance company produced the evidence in the following words:- F.A.O.NO. 1262OF 1991 2 “The respondents have led evidence to show that at the time of accident Maruti Van bearing registration No. PIL 8713 was requisitioned by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. RW-1 Inspector Harbhajan Singh has proved an entry, the copy of which is Ex.R.1, in the requisition register of M.T.O.Branch, S.S.P.Office, Ludhiana. As per this entry, which is dated 24.5.89, the Maruti Van bearing No. PIL 8713 owned by Neena Rani respondent was requisitioned and has placed at the disposal of CIA Staff, Ludhiana. RW-2 HC Parminder Singh proved entry Ex. R.2 from the register of requisition of vehicles, vide which the above Maruti Van was released on 2.6.89 from requisition as the vehicle met with an accident while it was in the custody of C.R.P.F for performing of law and order duties. RW-3 Raman Kumar, special attorney of respondent Neena Rani has also proved that this vehicle, after being requisitioned by District Magistrate, Ludhiana, was entrusted to C.R.P.F.” 3. The Tribunal still cast the liability on the ground that some strong entries in the register cannot prove that the vehicle was under the control of the State. He has also observed that there was nothing brought in record to show when the District F.A.O.NO. 1262OF 1991 3 Magistrate, Ludhiana, was empowered to order the requisition of the vehicle. If as a matter of fact it was shown that the vehicle was not in the control of the insured and it had been deployed for security purposes by the State, it shall be only the State that shall become liable. This aspect of liability has been in cases of requisitioning of vehicles by the State has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Deepa Devi and others 2008 ACJ 705. In keeping in view the judgment referred to above, the award of the Tribunal is set aside in so far as it fastened the liability on the insurer. The claimants will have a right of recovery only against the State who is impleaded as the fourth respondent in the claim petition. If any amount has been paid by the insurer, the same shall not be recovered from the claimants but shall be recovered only from the State. 4. Again if any amount is still recoverable by the claimants, the balance of amount that shall be recovered shall be done only from the State and not from the insurer. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik