Allowed

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2010FAO/1056/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the insurance company's appeal by dismissing it but modified reasoning to hold the insured's claim by accepting he drove the vehicle; simultaneously allowed the insured's cross-objection finding he drove rather than the unlicensed driver.

What did the court decide?

Cross appeal filed by insured is allowed to find insured was driving; Insurance Company's appeal is dismissed.

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surja Ram and Others — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Cross Objection No.54-CII of 2006 in/and FAO No.1056 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:20.09.2010

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited

....Appellant

versus

Surja Ram and others

...Respondents

Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶9

Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondents/cross-objector.

¶10

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶11

To be referred to the reporters or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

¶13

----

¶14

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶15

The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver Avtar Singh did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, the contention of the insured was that he himself was driving the vehicle and Avtar Singh was not driving the vehicle at all. The Criminal Court's record had been summoned that showed that only Basant Singh, insured had been challaned and his licence had also been produced before the Criminal Court. The Tribunal rejected the contention and still held that only Avtar Singh drove the vehicle. While preferring the appeal even the Insurance Company was interested in contending as one of the grounds of appeal that the vehicle was being

¶16

Cross Objection No.54-CII of 2006 in/and FAO No.1056 of 2003 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

driven only by Basant Singh and not by Avtar Singh. If that were to be the contention then the award of the Tribunal finding the insurer to be liable not merely to the claimants but also to indemnify the insured cannot be faulted. The award is confirmed but however on a modified reasoning that the vehicle was driven only by Basant Singh who held a valid driving licence and consequently, the insurer was also liable to indemnify the insured. The appeal by the Insurance Company shall, therefore, fail and it is dismissed as such.

¶18

The cross appeal has been filed by the insured to set aside the finding that Avtar Singh drove the vehicle. The cross appeal is allowed in the light of my finding that Avtar Singh was not the driver and Basant Singh himself was driving the vehicle.

¶19

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

¶20

20.09.2010 sanjeev

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pal Singh Vs State of Pb.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manjinder Kaur and Ors.

Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sarbati Devi and Ors.

(O&M) National Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Darshan Singh & Ors.

National Ins.Co. (O&M) Vs Shanti etc.