FAO No.274 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.31411-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.274 of 1987 Date of Decision.15.12.2010 Ravinder Singh son of Sh. Niranjan Singh resident of Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhari Workshop ......Appellant Versus Smt. Asha Rani widow of Shri Mohan Lal and others ......Respondents 2. C.M. No.31410-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.275 of 1987 Ravinder Singh son of Sh. Niranjan Singh resident of Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhari Workshop ......Appellant Versus Bihari Lal son of Shri Bhagmal and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the insurance company. None for other 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) C.M. Nos.31410-11-CII of 2010 Applications are allowed. Appeals are restored to their original numbers and are being taken up for hearing for disposal. FAO Nos.274 and 275 of 1987 1. Both the appeals are connected arising out of the same FAO No.274 of 1987 -2- accident. The appeals are at the instance of the owner and driver, whose vehicle had caused the accident and who, the Tribunal had found, was responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. As regards the claim arising out of death of one person, award had been passed for Rs.86,400/- and in respect of the other, the determination of compensation was Rs.38,400/-. The vehicle had been insured and being a three wheeler, the liability for a claim to a third party was restricted to Rs.15,000/- and accordingly, the Tribunal had passed the respective awards against the respondents including the insurer restricting the liability for Rs.15,000/- against the insurer and for the remaining amount cast the liability on the owner and driver of the vehicles. It is seen from the records that the driver was also subsequently convicted in a criminal case for his rash and negligent driving and it had become final. This itself would afford a strong ground to hold that the driver had been negligent and therefore, the award passed against the owner/driver was competent. The entire liability could not be fastened on the insurer, for the insurance company provided for restriction to cover to Rs.15,000/- as statutorily provided and the award, therefore, had been passed making such restriction. 2. The awards accord with law and there is no scope for intervention in appeals. The appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 10, 2010 Pankaj*