FAO No.1569 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1569 of 1996 Date of Decision. 09.07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136 Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141 001 through Shri M.S. Aggarwal its Deputy Manager .........Appellant Versus Kulwant Kaur widow of Bhajan Singh and others .......Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.3447 of 2009 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Shri Baljit Singh Deputy Manager .........Appellant Versus Smt. Chandrawali wife of late Shri Ishwar Singh son of Shri Munshi Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, 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. Both the appeals arise out of the same situation where the passengers died in a private vehicle. In FAO No.1569, the appeal by the insurer is on the ground that the claim arose out of the death of an occupant in a jeep, which turned turtle. It was an Act Policy and FAO No.1569 of 1996 -2- the contention of the insurer is that the risk to a passenger in a vehicle is not covered. 2. The Tribunal relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Appukttam 1995 ACJ 888 in which while providing a distinction between the provisions of the 1939 Act in dealing with Section 95 and the 1988 Act in dealing with Section 147, it had been held that the restriction of the expression third party, which was contained in the 1939 Act, did not apply to 1988 Act. In my view, it cannot still make a difference in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1 that dealt with the case of a passenger in a goods vehicle but the decision is also an authority for the fact that a passenger in a vehicle will not be required to be covered in an Act Policy under Section 147. If the owner of the vehicle was not required compulsorily to cover the risk to a passenger and there was no valid insurance cover, the insurance company could not have been made liable at all. The right of action will arise only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the insurer. 3. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it fixed the liability on the insurer is set aside and the appeal is allowed. It is clarified that the claim will survive only against the owner of the vehicle. It is seen from the records that there was no stay granted for the award and if the amount had been recovered already by the claimants, the insurer shall not recover the amounts from the claimant and it will be restricted only for a right of recovery against FAO No.1569 of 1996 -3- the insured. 4. In FAO No.3447 of 1999, it is seen from the record that there had been a stay of recovery beyond 50%. The insurance company shall not recover the amount, which has already been claimed and the insurer shall have a right of recovery of the amount released from it only from the insured. The claimant shall not have a right to recover the remaining 50% from the insurer and the claim will survive only against the insured. 5. The appeal in FAO No.3447 of 1999 is allowed to the above extent only. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 09, 2010 Pankaj*