Skip to content


Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath Advocate for Vs. Sukbir Singh and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantPresent: Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath Advocate for
RespondentSukbir Singh and Others
Excerpt:
.....adopted the same cours.of contention at the trial and sought for compensation against his own insurer. the tribunal has granted the compensation. 2. i find that the petition itself was not competent. there is no provision under the motor vehicles act which enables an owner to kamboj pankaj kumar 2014.03.14 13:09 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh make a claim against his own insurer by the language employed under section 165 of the motor vehicles act. the entitlement is only for a third party against the insurer. if there was no personal accident cover, there is scope for making the insurer liable, for insurance is a contract of indemnity. the insurance can be made liable only for liability for the insured himself. the insured cannot be a claimant and.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2316 of 2002 Date of Decision.12.03.2014 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Versus Sukbir Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr.Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.S.S.Kharab, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr.Rohit Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.4.

CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

Yes 2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

Yes 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Yes -.- K.

KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1.

The appeal by the insurer is on the ground that the claimant is himself the insured and he was not a third party to make a claim for alleged negligent driving of his own driver.

The accident was a result of collision between the claimant's four wheeler against another vehicle belonging to the 3rd respondent.

A FIR had been registered against the claimant's own driver as having been guilty of negligent driving.

The owner adopted the same couRs.of contention at the trial and sought for compensation against his own insurer.

The Tribunal has granted the compensation.

2.

I find that the petition itself was not competent.

There is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act which enables an owner to Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.14 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh make a claim against his own insurer by the language employed under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The entitlement is only for a third party against the insurer.

If there was no personal accident cover, there is scope for making the insurer liable, for insurance is a contract of indemnity.

The insurance can be made liable only for liability for the insured himself.

The insured cannot be a claimant and also the person who is liable for the accident by the conduct of his driving.

Any contractual liability by the insurer for a personal accident is independent and will not come within the four corners of claim under Sections 165 to 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petition was wholly incompetent and the award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous.

3.

The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal by the insurer is allowed.

(K.

KANNAN) JUDGE March 12, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.14 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //