F.A.O.NO. 1273 OF 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1273 OF 2003 Date of decision:27th July, 2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Lichmi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Devinder Singh Sanjwan, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Kundu, Advocate, Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is filed by the Insurer denying liability on the ground that even the averments in the claim petition did not reveal that the fourth respondent insured was the employer of the deceased. The case arose out of the claim of a passenger in a goods carriage. The contention of the claimant was that he was a mechanic in stone crusher and he was going on the vehicle in this capacity as such. The statutory requirement of a compulsory insurance cover under Section 147 of the Motor F.A.O.NO. 1273 OF 2003 2 Vehicles Act is only to cover the risk of a workman against his employer and the insurer. In order, the insurer is made liable, it shall first be shown that the deceased was a workman under the insured. In this case, that was not the contention of the claimants. The insured was the fourth respondent, the copy of the policy was also filed in the Court marked as Ex:R-1. If the deceased was not shown to have been employed under the insured then the liability cannot be fastened on the fourth respondent or the insurer, especially, when it is an Act Policy and the liability stand restricted to the contingencies contemplated under Section 147(2) proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on its own finding that the first respondent under whom the deceased was said to be working was not in any way connected with the vehicle and that the vehicle was not owned by both the respondents. 3. In this case, although the claimants were represented originally by the counsel since they were not present. I had sought the assistance of Shri Sukhwinder Singh Sudan as Amicus Curiae. I place on record my appreciation for the assistance given by him for placing the facts in their proper perspective. 4. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid his fee admissible under Rules from the Amicus Curiae fund. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 27th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik