IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1854 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:30.09.2010 M/s National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Baljinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate, 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. I direct Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, to take notice on behalf of the Insurance Company since the counsel on record has not been present in this Court. 2. The appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the liability on the ground that the claimants were representatives of a co-owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident that fell into a ditch and the claim had been made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That the accident was resultant to the use of the motor vehicle is not in dispute. The contentions are two fold: (i) in a claim under Section 166, negligence of the driver must be established; and (ii) FAO No.1854 of 2000 (O&M) - 4 - if he was the owner himself, there could be no cause of action for the representatives to claim against the owner and the insurer. A driver, who drove the vehicle into a ditch must be taken to be negligent in driving the vehicle. As regards the liability of the insurer to satisfy the claim in such a situation the terms of the policy would cover the situation. The Tribunal itself has noted the fact that the policy contained an entry for payment of premium for coverage to loss to the paid driver/cleaner and premium of Rs.45/- had been paid. The Tribunal also refers to IMT-17 stipulation that the Company had undertaken to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for any personal liability for death to any paid driver or cleaner. The insured, in this case, were three persons and the deceased himself was one of the co-owners. However, it is in evidence that vis-a-vis the share of the other brothers, who were co-owners, he was drawing a salary as a driver and he was getting paid for the service which he was rendering to his brothers. There is nothing wrong for a co-owner being also a paid employee for the other co-owners. This is a business practice that obtains in cases of companies and partnership. 3. Here the liability on the insurer arise for such terms in the policy that covers the risk to the paid driver. This aspect has been properly considered by the Tribunal and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The appeal by the insurer is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.09.2010 sanjeev