FAO No.63 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.63 of 1993 Date of decision March 16, 2011 Ram Chander and another ....... Appellants Versus Smt. Bimla Devi and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. N. K. Khosla, Advocate for respondent No.6-New India Assurance Company. None for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. **** 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 appeal is by the driver and the owner of the vehicle which was admittedly involved in the accident. The award of the Tribunal is challenged on essentially two grounds. i) the exoneration of the Insurance Company was wrong, ii) the claimants were not the legal representatives of the deceased. On that day the vehicle had not been used as a taxi but since it was declared as 'Bandh' , some persons including the deceased had got into the vehicle and in an accident the deceased had died. There was, therefore, no violation of the terms of the policy. I do not find that this objection could merit acceptance for the issue is not merely whether there is a violation of terms of policy or not. The issue is whether there was a policy to cover the risk of even a gratuitous FAO No.63 of 1993 2 passenger in the vehicle owned by the second appellant. If the policy was shown to cover the risk of only the third party, an owner of the vehicle cannot claim a right of indemnity for an award sought at the instance of the deceased who was a passenger in the private car. The liability cast on the owner and driver was therefore justified. 2. As regards the status of the claimants as legal heirs of the deceased, the appellant has filed additional documents that the first claimant Bimla Devi was widow of one Karmvir Singh and she was not the wife of Surinder Singh, the deceased. Evidence was also sought to be introduced to say that there was yet another person by name Bimla Devi who was the wife of another Surinder Singh and the claimants being practised impersonation to make a claim for the award, I find this attempt to create a confusion is only unfortunate for it is brought through the reply filed to the application filed by the appellant, that Bimla Devi was questioned on her status as the wife of Surinder Singh and she had explained that she had been married to one Karamvir Singh and after his death she had entered into a Karva marriage with Surinder Singh who was younger brother of Karamvir Singh. One child Anju had been borne to her through Karamvir and all other children have been borne to her only through Surinder Singh. She has also filed documents to show that Karmvir Singh's father was one Ajit and his land had been acquired by the Government he had died and succession certificate had been produced for claiming compensation that Karmvir Singh had died and when application was filed, Sunder Singh was also one of the petitioners and Anju as the daughter of Karamvir Singh was among the petitioners representing her father. The copy of succession certificate has also been brought before the Court by means of reply which showed that the children are born to Sunder Singh through the claimant Bimla Devi. The status of the children as legal representatives cannot therefore be denied. Anju is not a legal heir FAO No.63 of 1993 3 of the deceased but while determining the compensation, the Tribunal has provided for 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and determined the compensation. In the manner of distribution if the mother has no objection to the amount being shared along with Kumari Anju who was the daughter through her marriage with Karamvir Singh, then it cannot lie in the mouth of the owner or driver to question the apportionment. The award of compensation for the claimants was therefore justified and I find no reasons to interfere with the same. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 16 , 2011 archana