FAO No.1975 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1975 of 2005 Date of Decision. 17.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its duly authorized attorney ......Appellant Versus Sudesh Rani widow of Sh. Hans Raj, resident of Mohalla Prem Nagar Behrampur Road, Gurdaspur and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. R.C. Gupta, 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 on appeal challenging the award on the ground that the claimants were representatives of the deceased, who was the owner of a three-wheeler. The accident took place when the three-wheeler was crossing an unmanned railway crossing when it struck against the passing train. 2. The contention of the insurer is that the representatives of the owner cannot maintain an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The situation was dealt with slightly differently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another v United India Insurance Co Ltd 2009 ACJ 2010 where the claimants were representatives of the borrower of the owner and the Hon'ble FAO No.1975 of 2005 -2- Supreme Court held that the borrower stepped into the shoes of the owner and cannot obtain an indemnity for his own bodily injury or death. If even a borrower cannot obtain indemnity a fortiorari, the owner himself or his representatives cannot maintain an action against the insurer. There must be specific policy that should cover such a risk under a personal accident claim but the terms of the policy do not provide cover for such a person also. The claim petition could not have been maintained and the petition against the insurance company ought to have been dismissed. 3. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 17, 2010 Pankaj*