FAO No. 4749 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4749 of 2009 Date of decision February 8, 2011 Smt. Munesh and another ....... Appellants Versus Kuldeep Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Pardeep Goyal , Advocate for respondent No.5. None for respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. **** 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 only point urged in appeal is that in a case of composite negligence where the claimant was a passenger in a vehicle and the vehicle had a package policy, the premium calculated must include a coverage of risk for a passenger. While this was clarified in a communication of the Tariff Advisory Committee to all the Insurance Companies by its circular No. 1/78 dated 17.3.1978 and incorporated in the terms of the policy itself, the right of enforcement of the claim for a passenger therefore shall avail in case of composite negligence against the FAO No. 4749 of 2009 2 insurer of the vehicle in which he was travelling. 2. It is represented that the Insurance Company has already paid 50% of the amount and claimant shall be at liberty to enforce the remaining amount of 50% against the insurer. It shall be open to the insurer to seek for contribution of the remaining 50% of the amount from the owner of the other vehicle who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the appeal. The recovery by the insurer shall be possible in execution in the case before the Tribunal and need not be by means of any independent action. The appeal is allowed with the above clarification. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 8 , 2011 archana