IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.570 of 2005 Date of decision:09.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Harinder Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- 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 challenging the liability on the ground that the policy of insurance produced by the owner Sant Singh was fake. The policy had not been issued in relation to the vehicle bearing registration No.PJV-5235 which was admittedly involved in the motor accident. 2. In this case, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the insurer, although the insurer had examined a witness RW-2 Gulshan Kajala, who was an Assistant at the United Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Patiala, who gave evidence to the effect that the particular number given in the cover note referred to Lucknow region FAO No.570 of 2005 - 2 - and it had been issued to the Eicher tractor and not to the truck bearing No.PJV-5235. He explained that the cover note issued by Patiala office are under the Chandigarh region and the code mentioned on its cover notes are CHR with the year number which it was printed. He had also given evidence with reference to Ludhiana region, the code would have been LDRO/year in which it was printed. The copy of the policy bore a reference to Lucknow region and it had not been issued to the owner of the vehicle. When there was a plea denying the existence of even the policy, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the owner must have been examined to explain when the policy had been taken and to further explain the discrepancies pointed out with reference to the place of issue of the policy. In this case, the counsel appearing for the first respondent, who was described as the owner, had filed the written statement, contending that the vehicle had been sold to the second respondent, who was himself the driver, although the 1st respondent continued to be the registered owner. The second respondent remained ex parte and his name had been struck off by the Tribunal. I do not quite understand why a person to whom the vehicle is said to have been sold was ordered to be removed from the array of parties. In any event, I do not think it shall have a bearing for if the registered owner were to be taken as the person, who shall be responsible, the policy of insurance would protect him by affording to him a full indemnity, but if the policy is not established, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable at all. 3. The liability cast on the insurer is clearly wrong and the award is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed and the claimant is FAO No.570 of 2005 - 3 - entitlement to recover the amount only from the owner of the vehicle. 4. The alleged transfer of the vehicle by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal itself had not been established by any cogent evidence and, therefore, only the 1st respondent before the Tribunal shall become liable to pay the amount to the claimants. If any amount has already been recovered by the claimants from the insurer, the insurer's right shall be not to recover the same from the claimants but proceed against the owner of the vehicle only. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.08.2010 sanjeev