CWP No. 16289 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16289 of 2008 Date of decision July 14, 2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....... Petitioner Versus Lala Ram and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Paul S. Saini , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain , Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petition is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act. The claim was for the death of a person who was driving the motor cycle in a collision against an unknown vehicle. The claim was made against the insurer of the vehicle which he was driving relying on a personal accident cover under the policy. The contention on behalf of the Insurance Company is that a personal accident cover is personal to the person who is the insured under the policy and it cannot avail to the benefit of a relative or a borrower of the vehicle. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that under the terms of the policy the driver is shown to be a person who has a valid license and CWP No. 16289 of 2008 2 it is not restricted to the user of the vehicle only by the insured. The claim cannot be denied, on as it was proved that the deceased had a valid license. 2. The personal accident cover comes through a motor tariff regime allowing for owner of a vehicle to take an insurance cover for any personal accident that results in death or injury in an accident which is provided under terms of the policy itself. It is a contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured and so long as the claim does not emanate from a third party for the act done by the driver of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable under the personal accident cover to the person other than the insured. The definition of the driver to include a person who owns a driving license will have relevance only so far as it makes the insurance liable for a claim by third party for the act of such a driver. The said definition of the driver will not make the insurer liable under the personal accident cover. The liability cast on the Insurance Company was therefore wrong. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the order has been passed under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority but the petition has been filed challenging the order as though it is one passed under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority. This is an obvious mistake and this mistake cannot deflect the weight of the contentions made by the Insurance Company to exclude its liability. 4. The writ petition challenging the award therefore is sustained. However, the Insurance Company will still become liable for `50,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat for an untoward incident especially when there was a valid policy, under the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 140 under ' no fault liability', in terms of the decision of Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and another Vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and another CWP No. 16289 of 2008 3 reported in 2010 (8) Scale 263. This modification I make under the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the award shall stand modified even while accepting the claim for the petitioner that the Insurance Company could not have been made liable under the Personal Accident Cover. 5. The writ petition is ordered in terms of the above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14 , 2011 archana