IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.374 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:18.11.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Inderjit and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---- 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 appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging two awards jointly disposed of- one in a claim by Latif, who was a gratuitous passenger and another in a claim by the owner, who was also a traveller in the vehicle. The insured's vehicle admittedly belonged to the claimant. The counsel for the respondent has objection to the appellant challenging two awards under a single appeal. I called the appellant to exercise an option for prosecuting the appeal against either one of the claims and the counsel states that he gives up the challenge as regards the award passed in favour of Latif. I will take the appeal only as a case for adjudication FAO No.374 of 1999 (O&M) - 2 - relating to the claim of the owner-Inderjit for injuries suffered in the accident. 2. There is a fundamental objection to the fact of insurance of the vehicle which was involved in the accident namely DL-1-CB-4558. The policy of insurance, however, gives the number as DL-4C-4558. The counsel for the appellant contends that the policy of insurance was for some other vehicle and the plea by the owner that a wrong number had been given was an afterthought. The change of registration number in the policy was sought for only three years after the accident and the owner had not taken any steps to have the policy amended. I do not think it becomes necessary for me to adjudicate on this contentious issue since the Insurance Company has another string to the bow, as it were, to contend that the claimant was the owner/insured and the policy filed in Court would show that it was an Act policy and there was no insurance cover for a claim to be sustained for injury to the insured himself. The plea regarding non-liability was specifically adverted to in para 10 of the preliminary objections of the insurer and also urged as one of the grounds of appeal. I have gone through the policy and I find that it covers only a third party liability on a basic premium and the limit of liability does not extend to a personal accident cover. The requirement of a personal accident cover was still not extant at the relevant time of the policy on 06.08.1998. The Insurance Company could not have been made liable under such circumstances and I set aside the award casting the liability to the insurer to satisfy the claim emanating from the owner. The appeal by the insurer is allowed. FAO No.374 of 1999 (O&M) - 3 - 3. It is submitted that during the pendency of appeal, the appellant has satisfied the award. It shall be open to claim restitution in view of the award being set aside as far as the owner-Inderjit is concerned. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.11.2010 sanjeev