IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4906 of 2007 Date of decision:05.08.2010 United India Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Sukhiya and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.4907 of 2007 United India Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Abdul Hussain alias Abusana Seikh alias Abruman and others. ...Respondents III. FAO No.142 of 2008 Deepak ....Appellant versus Sukhiya and others ...Respondents IV. FAO No.143 of 2008 Deepak ....Appellant versus Abdul Hussain alias Abusana Seikh alias Abruman and others ...Respondents FAO No.4906 of 2007 - 2 - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO Nos.4906 and 4907 of 2007 and for respondents Nos.5 and 3 respectively in FAO Nos.142 and 143 of 2008. Mr. D.L. Singla, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 2 respectively in FAO Nos.142 and 143 of 2008. Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO Nos.142 and 143 of 2008 and for respondent Nos.5 and 3 respectively in FAO Nos.4906 and 4907 of 2007. ---- 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 four appeals are connected in the sense that they arose out of the same accident. The appeals in FAO Nos. 4906 and 4907 of 2007 are at the instance of the insurer denying its liability to make any payment for the claimants' cause, while FAO Nos.142 and 143 of 2008 are appeals by the insured/owner challenging the finding in the award that the driving licence was fake and that a right of recovery had been provided to the insurer. 2. As regards the driving licence, it has come on record that the vehicle was driven by a person named Kala @ Shankar Sharma, but the driving licence had actually been issued in the name of Abdul Gaffar. The evidence of a Clerk from the licensing authority had testified that the particular licence bearing the licence number as given by the driver had not been issued in the name of Kala @ Shankar Sharma. The defence of the Insurance Company stood clearly proved that there was a breach of FAO No.4906 of 2007 - 3 - conditions in the policy relating to the driving licence. The right of recovery granted to the insurer after satisfying the award was therefore perfectly justified. 3. The Insurance Company states that the liability itself ought not to have been cast on the insurer since a person, who died and the person, who was insured were gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal had adverted to this aspect in its award when it has stated that the two persons who were travelling in the vehicle were workmen employed by the owner/insured for transporting bricks from the brick-kiln. The liability of the insured for taking a compulsory insurance cover for the workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act is protected under Section 147 (2) proviso and, therefore, in my view, the persons travelling in the goods carriage cannot be treated as gratuitous passengers. On the other hand, they were workmen whose risk for death/injuries are covered by the compulsory policy of insurance even in an Act policy. The incidence of liability on the insurer to satisfy the claimants is, therefore, well founded. 4. On the issue of quantum or negligence, the learned counsel appearing for the owner states that the accident arose when a cow darted across the road suddenly and in a bid to save it, the driver turned the vehicle to one side, but it hit against a tree. It cannot be stated that a cow was negligent in any sense and the accident was clearly an example of res ipsa loquitur situation, that should place the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver, who would not successfully maneuver his vehicle from dashing against a tree. The finding relating to negligence is, FAO No.4906 of 2007 - 4 - therefore, properly established. Even on the question of quantum, apart from stating that they are exorbitant, there was nothing brought out before me that the awards have been passed without applying any of the legal parameters that are necessary for ascertaining the compensation. 5. The appeals by the owner in FAO Nos.142 and 143 of 2008 are dismissed. The Insurance Company's appeals in FAO Nos.4906 and 4907 of 2007 are also dismissed confirming the awards of the Tribunal to make the insurer liable to satisfy the claimants with a right of recovery against the owner. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.08.2010 sanjeev