FAO No.2196 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2196 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 17.03.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCOP No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal). ......Appellant Versus Karamjit Kaur aged about 51 years and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.2197 of 2011 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCOP No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal). ......Appellant Versus Gurtej Singh (unsound mind) aged 32 years son of Sh. Harpal Singh and others .....Respondents 3. FAO No.2198 of 2011 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCOP No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal). ......Appellant Versus Baldev Singh aged about 47 years son of Sh. Tara Singh and others .....Respondents 4. FAO No.2199 of 2011(O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCOP No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal). ......Appellant Versus Darshan Singh aged about 37 years son of Sh. Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents FAO No.2196 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 5. FAO No.2200 of 2011 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at SCOP No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal). ......Appellant Versus Sarup Sing aged 42 years son of Sh. Nihal Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. All the appeals are filed at the instance of the insurance company challenging the liability on the ground that transportation of electric posts in a tractor-trailer constitutes non-agricultural purpose and therefore, not covered under the terms of policy. I have seen through the terms of the policy and the limitation as to use, which are as follows:- “Use only for agricultural and forestry purposes. The policy does not cover (1) Use for hire or reward or for racing, pace making reliability trial or speed testing. (2) Use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. (3) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted by law.” 2. The mere fact that electric poles were there in the tractor- trailer ought not to be understood as incompatible with agriculture. FAO No.2196 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Electric poles and agriculture are not in any way to be assumed as totally unrelated objects. It is ultimately a matter of evidence and it shall be the duty of the insurance company to prove the same. It is not the insured, who will explain that this situation relates to agricultural purpose unless it had been elicited specifically that these poles could not have been used in any manner for agricultural purpose. After all, the burden of proof of violation of terms of policy is always on the insurer. It does not avail to the insurance company to contend that it is not for agricultural purpose with absolutely no evidence elicited to such an extent. 3. There is no substance in the plea of the insurance company that there is any violation of terms of policy. All the appeals are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE March 17, 2011 Pankaj*