F.A.O.NO. 4712 OF 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4712 OF 2005 Date of decision:1st September, 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Manager. .......Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 by the Insurance Company challenging the liability in a case where the claim arose out of a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased mother, whose son was the owner of vehicle. Two objections had been taken by the insurer, F.A.O.NO. 4712 OF 2005 2 one, the insurance policy was an Act Policy and the additional cover had been only for a liability to the driver under the Work Compensation Act. There was no policy of insurance to cover the risk to any passenger in a private car. Secondly, the claim could not have been prosecuted under Section 163-A of the Act for the deceased was alleged to have a monthly income of Rs. 7,000/- per month which would mean that the annual income was above Rs. 84,000/-. The ceiling limit under Section 163-A of the Act. 2. I have no difficulty in accepting both the contentions, for the claimant under Section 163-A of the Act for an accident caused by the owner by driving into the rear side of the truck cannot be done without reference to her fault. Section 163-A of the Act which excludes the proof of fault arises only in respect of claims against another vehicle, when the claimant or the deceased was himself a third party. If the deceased was a passenger in a private vehicle which had been involved in an accident by the negligent driving, can have no cause of action against his own insurer in an Act only Policy. Even the maintainability of the petition was suspect, for the income of the deceased was in excess of over Rs. 40,000/-, the ceiling prescribed under Section 163-A of the Act. It may have been possible to sustain the claim against the owner and the insurer of the truck to the extent to which any negligence could be attributed to them but they were not even parties in this case. The claimants rest contended with an attempt to prosecute the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. The F.A.O.NO. 4712 OF 2005 3 owner of the vehicle was son of the deceased himself and the representatives who have filed the case are the husband and other sons. The petition is not maintainable. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 1st September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik