IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.152 of 1991 Date of decision:10.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Tej Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate, for Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chowdhary, Senior 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. The Insurance Company is in appeal contending for a position that under the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, there was a restriction of liability to the insurer for truck for Rs.1,50,000/- and the Tribunal while awarding Rs.2 lakhs has saddled the insurer for the entire amount. Before the Tribunal when a copy of the policy was produced, the Tribunal has held that the copy was not properly proved. I am not prepared to fetter the Insurance Company with such a technical objection but on going through the policy which was produced before the Court, I do not see any particular reference to the restriction of liability to Rs.1,50,000/-. It must be remembered that the claimant was a third party to the truck. He was a driver in a tempo against which the FAO No.152 of 1991 - 2 - insured's truck dashed and by the injuries sustained, the driver died. A restriction of liability is invariably a term of contract which will become enforceable as far as the insured is concerned. Here if the contract of insurance does not spell out the limitation of liability, then it cannot be assumed that under the 1939 Act, the liability of an insurer shall always be restricted to Rs.1,50,000/- , more particularly so when the claim was at the instance of a third party to the truck. 2. The award of the Tribunal is, under the circumstances, confirmed and the appeal by the insurer is dismissed. The claimant is entitled to enforce the award for the entire amount against the insured. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.09.2010 sanjeev