FAO No.242 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.242 of 1991 Date of Decision. 11.08.2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rohtak through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Nirmla wd/o Jasbir Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, 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 denies liability on the ground that the insured had not been made as a party. It came out through evidence placed by the insurer that the insured, who owned the vehicle that met with accident, was M/s Swami Goods Carrier but the person, who had been impleaded as a party was Ajay Kumar. If it was merely a case of a complete stranger, who was not in any way connected to the insured or the owner, the contention of the insurer would be justified. In this case, the Ajay Kumar pleaded that he was a partner in M/s Swami Goods Carrier and in such a capacity he owned the vehicle. Unlike a company which is an independent entity, the partnership operates through its partners and when a contention was taken by Ajay Kumar that he was a partner, the claimant ought to have taken steps to bring the proper description of FAO No.242 of 1991 -2- the owner by referring to Ajay Kumar as a partner and properly amending the cause title by incorporating the name of the partnership. This the claimant himself could have been done or the Tribunal could have directed the same to be done particularly in view of the defence taken by the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company relies on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bachan Singh and others Vol.LXXXIV-1982 PLR 280 that held that an insurer will not be liable if the insurer is not made as a party. The difference in this case is only that the insured had been a party but he was not properly described. I would not deny to the claimants a right of recovery against the insurer to what was merely a technical flaw, which should have been corrected at the trial Court. This is again need not detain us at this time, for the case has been admitted in the year 1991 and has stood for consideration for 19 years. I do not think that it is necessary to make a direction for amendment of the cause title only to see that a technical objection is removed. There is an objection, which is purely technical and a substantial justice has been done by the Tribunal, which was not illegal or unlawful. 3. The award is sustained and the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 11, 2010 Pankaj*