IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.900 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:14.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Yogesh Kumar and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.901 of 1998 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt.Vidya Devi and another ...Respondents III. FAO No.902 of 1998 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Umed Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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. All the three appeals are at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the award on three grounds: (i) the compensation awarded is high; (ii) the vehicle was carrying nine passengers when the FAO No.900 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - seating capacity was only 6; and (iii) that the vehicle was being used for hire when the policy of insurance was only to cover the risk for an use as a private vehicle. 2. As regards the contention regarding quantum, it shall not be permissible for the insurer to urge the same in the absence of any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The defence as regards the quantum is not available under the scheme of the Act to the insurer and, therefore, the said plea is rejected. 3. As regards the contention that the vehicle had more passengers than what was permitted as the seating capacity, the objection shall have relevance if the accident was shown to have been taken place by virtue of such overcrowding of the jeep. It can again be relevant in a case where the claims of persons in excess of the seating capacity emanates from the accident. If the permitted capacity was six but the claims before the Tribunal were less than the permitted capacity, I shall take the issue regarding the number of persons found travelling in the vehicle as irrelevant. The same is again by virtue of the fact that there was no evidence brought in to show that the accident had taken place only on account of overcrowding of the jeep. 4. As regards the contention that the vehicle was being put to an use for a purpose not mentioned in the policy, the same has also to be discarded for the reason that there was no such plea that the vehicle was being put to use not authorized under the terms of the policy. The learned counsel points out to the evidence that the passenger did not even know the name of the owner or the driver. From such a plea, it is FAO No.900 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - not possible to infer that the vehicle has been used for hire. A gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle may not know the name of the owner or the driver, for, that cannot determine the issue of liability for an insurance. If there was a policy that covered the risk of passengers in a private vehicle and, there was also no plea that there had been an use which was unauthorized by the terms of the policy, I would find the plea taken by the insurer before this Court as not worthy of acceptance. 5. The respective awards of the Tribunal are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 14.09.2010 sanjeev