F.A.O.NO.564 OF 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO.564 OF 2006 Date of decision:9th August, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Dy. Manager. .......Appellant Versus Jeeto Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. V.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company denying the liability on the ground that the person who drove the vehicle was a cleaner and he was not the authorized driver. The death occurred on account of his own negligent driving by dashing against a tree. It is contended therefore, that the claim under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be instituted for a tort feasor or cannot have a cause of action for a claim against the owner or the insurer. 2. I have no doubt in my mind that a strict liability norm with Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act merely absolves F.A.O.NO.564 OF 2006 2 the duty of a claimant to prove the negligence of another person who has caused the accident but if the accident is caused by the deceased himself then the representatives will have no cause of action to make the insurer liable in a claim under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petition before the Tribunal was therefore not competent. 3. However, I still examine this case as an Appellate Authority under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. The deceased was admittedly a workman, a cleaner under owner of the truck. Such a person is entitled to a compulsory insurance under Section 147 and an Insurer would become liable if there was no breach of terms of the policy for death of a workman who died in the course of employment. The insured shall not have a right of indemnity if he had entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not competent to drive the vehicle and who was duly licenced before the Tribunal. That is precisely the case here and hence the insurer is not liable. The evidence was that the deceased was paid Rs. 2500/- as income per month and he was aged 26 years. The relevant factor under Schedule IV for a person aged 26 years would be 215.28. The compensation that may have become payable under Workmen Compensation Act would be 50% of his salary namely Rs. 2500/- multiplied by the relevant factor. Learned counsel states that although the claim was made on the basis that the deceased was paid Rs. 2500/- the owner gave evidence that he paid him only Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal however, took Rs. 2500/- as the salary. I maintain the F.A.O.NO.564 OF 2006 3 same. The amount that will become payable by the application of the formula given under the Workmen Compensation Act is Rs. 2,68,750/-. This amount shall be recovered by the claimants only against the owner/insured of the truck. There shall be no liability on the insurer. The appeal is allowed. 4. At the time when the appeal was admitted, this Court had allowed the claimants to recover the amount on furnishing security. The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to enforce the security for its recovery or at its option it may recover the amount from the insured directly in execution proceedings. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik