FAO No. 5088 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5088 of 2010 Date of decision February 14, 2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Kamla Devi and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.1.2011, several files were burnt. 2. The Registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the Court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. 3. The appeal by the Insurance Company takes the FAO No. 5088 of 2010 2 plea that the deceased was a person who had borrowed the vehicle and he had been struck by an unknown vehicle that resulted in death. Before the Tribunal the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Company reported in (2009) ACJ 2020 was cited. It was cited but the Court held that the borrower had stepped into the shoes of the owner and therefore he would be entitled to the amount of `1,00,000/- which is provided under the policy cover. This reasoning in my view, is erroneous for the issue of an owner borrower stepping into the shoes of the owner must be understood in the context of consequences for his act to make the owner liable or it must be understood for the effect of an entitlement of the owner in a situation where the policy cover makes it possible. The language employed in the policy filed in Court is that the personal accident cover is available for “owner-driver”. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that only in a case where the owner is also a driver or an owner is a passenger in a package policy the enforcement of claim would become possible and “owner-driver” cannot be read as meaning owner or driver. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant has a different perception to how an expression of owner- driver must be read but this is driven by the terms of Motor Tariff Committee Recommendations and they have been construed to mean only an owner who is also a driver in the given situation and not a driver who is a borrower of a vehicle. The personal accident cover is invariably personal to the person who has taken the policy unless different intention appears from the terms of the policy itself. The liability of the Insurance Company cannot be therefore even to `1,00,000/-. I will allow `50,000/- under no fault basis under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the manner laid down in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and another Vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and another reported in 2010 (8) Scale 263.B. The award of the Tribunal is modified to restrict the liability of the Insurance FAO No. 5088 of 2010 3 Company to `50,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 14, 2011 archana