IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2249 of 1996 Date of decision:25.08.2010 M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Mukesh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.2250 of 1996 Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sultan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ----- 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 cases are connected, arising out the same accident and are disposed of by a common order. 2. The Insurance Company in both the cases is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the admitted case of the claimants was that the deceased was waiting at the bus stand when the driver of the insurer's vehicle stopped the vehicle which was a goods carriage and gave a lift. The deceased paid Rs.2/- as fare and proceeded towards the village when the accident had taken place. A further point FAO No.2249 of 1996 - 2 - was made at the trial when the contention by the insurer was that he was a fare paying passenger in a goods carriage and, therefore, there is no liability for the insurance. The attempt was therefore to say that the fare had not been even paid. Whether a person pays fare or as a joy rider or gets merely a friendly lift, it cannot make a difference unless he is a workman, who is entitled to an insurance cover under Section 147 or an owner of the goods travelling in a goods carriage along with the goods. Any other kind of passenger in a goods carriage shall not be required to be covered for risk of bodily injury or death. 2. The Tribunal could not have found the insurer liable under such circumstances. The learned counsel also urges a plea of want of driving licence which I do not feel constrained to join issues, for, the case of the claimant against the insurer ought to fail only on the admitted pleadings. 3. The award of the Tribunal casting liability on the insurer is set aside and the appeal is allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, if any amount has been recovered from the insurer, the entitlement of the insurer shall be enforced only against the insured and not against the claimants. I find from the interim order passed by this Court on 15.04.1998 that the claimants had been permitted to realize interest on the amount from the Bank held as deposit. Those amounts shall also be recovered by the insurer only against the insured. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2010 sanjeev