IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1834 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:04.05.2011 Smt. Rita Devi and others ...Appellants versus Som Parkash and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Ms. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 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. The point involved in the appeal is rejection of a claim at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 163-A for an accident involving motor vehicle that caused his death when he was driving a tractor. The identity of the other motor vehicle could not be traced. The counsel for the appellants was relying upon the terms of the policy that provided a personal accident cover to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. A personal accident cover is a personal covenant of the insurer to cover the risk to the insured and if the claim emanates from a person other than the insured, he/she cannot rely on the personal accident cover. FAO No.1834 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - The rejection of the claim on the ground that the personal accident cover does not extend to a borrower of the vehicle from the owner was, therefore, justified. 2. However, for the only fact that the vehicle was insured and the deceased met with an accident by the use of the motor vehicle, the representatives are entitled to enforce a claim on the basis of no fault to the extent of Rs.50,000/- provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and another Versus C. S. Gurushanthappa and another-2010(8) Scale 263. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed only to the extent indicated above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.05.2011 sanjeev