FAO No.4689 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4689 of 2007 Date of Decision. 13.09.2010 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company through Ms Shilpa Sachdeva, Senior Executive Legal SCO No.139-140, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Baljinder Singh son of Sh. Katar Singh resident of Gogripur Tehsil and District Karnal and another ......Respondents Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, 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. Service is effected on the owner of the vehicle through father on 26.07.2008. Service deemed sufficient. 2. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the issue of liability in a case where the driver of the motor cycle, who had borrowed the vehicle from the owner Mr. Surinder Singh met with an accident when he dashed against the bullock cart. The claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is the person injured in the accident. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is that under the terms of the policy, the person, who drives the vehicle and who caused the accident by borrowing the FAO No.4689 of 2007 -2- vehicle from the owner is not entitled to any cover. The policy is produced before me and the limitation as to use contained in the document reveals as follows:- “The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: Hire or reward, Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage), organized racing, Pace making, speed testing, reliability trials. Any person in connection with Motor Trade.” 3. The person who is authorized to drive is also mentioned and it is also reproduced as follows: “Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.” 4. In terms of Section II, which details liability to third parties, clause 3 reads as follows:- “In terms of and subject to the limitations of the indemnity granted by this section to the insured, the company will indemnify any driver who is driving the vehicle on the insured's order or with insured's permission provided that such driver shall as though he/she was the insured observe fulfil and be subject to the terms exceptions and conditions of this policy in so far as they apply.” FAO No.4689 of 2007 -3- 5. While referring to the personal accident cover for an owner/driver, which the policy provides for, that cover is only personal to the owner and it does not extend to any person, who borrows the vehicle. This is seen from clause 1 mentioned in sub- clause (c), which is reproduced as under:- “(a) the owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein; (b) the owner driver is the insured named in this policy. (c) the owner-driver holds an effective driving licence, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 at the time of the accident.” 6. If the policy merely provided for a personal accident cover for owner/driver, a person who borrows such a vehicle cannot obtain any right of action against the insurer. The indemnity to a driver, which the terms of the policy contemplates is to provide a cover for his act that results in death or injury to any third party. A driver of a vehicle, who is involved in the accident is not to be treated as third party and therefore, I am of the view that the claimant is not entitled to make such a successful claim against the insurer of the vehicle, which he was driving. 7. The award issued in favour of the claimant and against the insurer is not tenable in law. The award is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 13, 2010 Pankaj*