FAO No.30 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.30 of 1999 Date of Decision. 28.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Hisar having its Regional Office, Sector-8, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Shiv Kumar son of Norang Rai and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellants. 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. The insurance company is on appeal on the ground that the deceased was a passenger in a vehicle that was being used as a taxi. The contention of the insurer was that since there had been violation of terms of policy, the insurer could not have been made liable without providing for a right of recovery against the insured. 2. This issue whether the vehicle had been used as a private vehicle was specifically dealt with by the Tribunal. The insurer contended that in the FIR lodged with the police, it had been stated that the vehicle was being used as a taxi and Rs.450/- had been paid as hire charges to go to Sirsa. The Tribunal did not accept this plea on the ground that this so-called statement in the FIR was not FAO No.30 of 1999 -2- confronted to PW2 when he gave evidence to the effect that he had not hired the vehicle but it was owned by his friend and that he had taken the jeep. In the cross-examination what was elicited was whether the police recorded a statement from him in the hospital and whether he had told the police that he had hired the vehicle as a taxi. The suggestion was denied by the witness. In such circumstances, the Tribunal reasoned that when the contents of FIR, which purported to contain a recital that the vehicle was being used as a taxi had not been confronted with the witness especially when he gave evidence as to the terms of the FIR and when his affirmation was that he had taken the vehicle from his friend, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence whatsoever on record except the FIR to prove that the jeep in question was being used as a taxi and the contents in FIR contrary to statement on oath cannot be read into evidence. The appreciation of evidence and the statement of law as made by the Tribunal are appropriate and correct and would require no intervention in appeal by this Court. 3. The award is confirmed casting the liability on the insurer and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 28, 2010 Pankaj*