IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2266 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 8, 2009. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant(s) v. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Shri Balbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award and its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants if the accident in question has not taken place in the public area. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the present case the accident has taken place in the premises of the respondent-claimants. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have argued that whole of the area falling in the geographical area of India is covered as per the insurance policy Ex.R3, and therefore, the ground raised by the appellant is not tenable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. FAO No.2266 of 2009 -2- Admittedly, the appellant insurance-company has not raised a specific ground in its written statement as argued before this court, though the point was argued before the Tribunal. I am of the considered view that in the absence of the pleadings, it was not open to the appellant-insurance company to raise such a point and therefore, I find no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and same is liable to be rejected. Otherwise also, the insurance policy is a contract between the two parties and once the appellant has agreed to indemnify the claim as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid policy, he cannot be permitted to escape his liability on vague and filmy grounds. Once the whole of the geographical area of India is covered under the policy, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the aforesaid contention as submitted before this Court. Dismissed. December 8, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge