IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2562 of 2004 Date of decision:09.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Smt.Kunti Devi and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.2563 of 2004 New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Samay Singh and others ....Respondents III. FAO No.2564 of 2004 New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Sheobai and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. 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 ? ---- FAO No.2562 of 2004 - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. All the three appeals advert to the same issue of liability on an insurer for the use of the vehicle for a commercial purpose when the policy of insurance was only for a private purpose. The claims arose out of motor accident, who were passengers in the insured vehicle. 2. It was an admitted case that the passengers were using it as a taxi having undertaken to on hire charges. At the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had examined the Assistant Administrative Officer Mr. Pawan Kumar and produced the copy of the policy as R-1. The Tribunal has observed that the policy did not state anywhere that it was only to be used for a private purpose and that there has been no policy of insurance for using it as a commercial vehicle. I have seen the copy of the policy and I have also seen the evidence tendered before the Tribunal. The witness has clearly spoken to the fact that the mark A portion in R-1 pertained to a “comprehensive policy” and it was a private care and the seating capacity was as per the RC. The reference to the seating capacity is perhaps not relevant to us immediately, but the evidence adduced by him that the policy of insurance was only for the user as a private vehicle makes it clear that the vehicle which required a permit for carrying fare paying passengers did not have such a permit. It is one of the permissible defences under Section 149(2) and the insurer could not have been made liable for violation of the terms of the policy, without providing for a right of recovery against the insured for breach of the terms of the policy. 3. The comprehensive insurance that the owner had will only FAO No.2562 of 2004 - 3 - enable the claimants to recover the money against the insurer and the award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to make it liable to satisfy the claimants with the right of recovery against the insured. 4 All the appeals and the revision are allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.08.2010 sanjeev