FAO No.5786 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5786 of 2009 Date of Decision. 26.07.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager ...Appellant Versus Bale Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, 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 against the award passed by the Tribunal making it liable to satisfy the claim of a third party and providing for a right of recovery against the insured. Once any breach or violation of conditions of policy are made, by virtue of provision of Section 149(4) proviso and Section 149(5), the insurance company becomes liable only to pay to the claimants but the right of recovery obtains by the fact that the insured had committed a breach of terms of the policy in any of the circumstances laid down under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The principle is too well laid to cast any shadow of doubt in several decisions and particularly in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Shimla Vs. FAO No.5786 of 2009 -2- Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342. 2. The doubt, which has been subsequently expressed (Justice Katju) is only in respect of cases where the insurer is not liable in the first place and that there is no valid policy at all but still made liable to pay with the right of recovery. It is wholly a different situation, which we are not governed. There have been instances where even in a case where there is no valid insurance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided that the liability as already determined even though wrongly on the insurer shall subsist and it will have only a right of recovery. This the Hon'ble Supreme Court has done by invoking the special powers under Article 142 of the 3. For our sake, it is sufficient to point out that the exclusion of liability by the insurer was sought on the ground of violation of the terms of policy under Section 149(2) when the insurer was otherwise liable under the terms of policy. 4. The decision of the Tribunal is correct and there is no cause for interference. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 26, 2010 Pankaj*