FAO No.4116 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4116 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision. 09.02.2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 139-140, 1st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160-018 through its Branch Manager Vikas Bhutani ......Appellant Versus Neelam wife of late Parmod Kumar son of Tek Ram and others .....Respondents Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.01.2011, 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. Learned counsel for the appellant states that publication had been ordered at the previous hearing and publication was also effected FAO No.4116 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and service has been treated as complete. 4. The contention in appeal by the insurance company is that the claimants were representatives of the deceased, who was a driver and owner of the motor cycle. The accident had taken place in the attempt of the deceased to avoid hitting a cow and he fell down and suffered fatal injuries. A borrower of a vehicle from the owner, who comes by harm leaves no trail of cause of action for proceeding against the insurance company. This matter of law has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another v United India Insurance Co Ltd 2009 ACJ 2010 . Consequently, the award passed against the insurance company is not tenable and the award is set aside. 5. However, the claim could still be pursued by the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the manner laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. Vs. C. S. Gurushanthappa and Anr 2010(8) SCALE 263 . The award is set aside and modified to allow for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the claimants payable by the insurance company. 6. The appeal is allowed subject to modification as above. The amount deposited before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal at Sonepat to the credit of the MACT Case No.32 of 2006. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 09, 2011 Pankaj*