IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2689 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Tara Singh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.5008 of 2003 (O&M) Amarjit Kaur and another ....Appellants versus Mandeep Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. (in FAO No.2689 of 2003). Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate, for the appellants. (in FAO No.5008 of 2003) None 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. The appeal by the Insurance Company is in respect of a claim by the parents of the deceased, who was riding on a scooter that belonged to his wife. The claim is made under Section 163-A of the FAO No.2689 of 2003 (O&M) - 2 - Motor Vehicles Act. A strict liability norm prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act may not require the proof for negligence when an accident was the result of the negligence of another person. It does not mean a person, who was himself negligent and who causes an accident will leave anything for the legal representatives to make a claim. This aspect of law has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited-2009 ACJ 2020 that settles the issue that a person, who borrows a vehicle from the owner and causes an accident will not make possible for a representative of the deceased person to make a claim against the owner or the insurer. In this case, the owner of the scooter was the wife of the deceased. The parents can have no cause of action for a claim against the daughter-in-law or the insurer for what has been the consequence of the scooterist negligence itself. The petition under Section 163-A was clearly not maintainable. The award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. The appeal by the insurer shall therefore be allowed. 2. There is an appeal for enhancement. In view of the law stated where I have held that the claimants are not entitled to make the claim and there is no cause of action for claim, the question of enhancement also does not arise. The appeal for enhancement of compensation in FAO No.5008 of 2003 is also dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.07.2010 sanjeev