IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No. 81 of 1988 Shri Satpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Shri S.K.Bansal, Advocate. Versus Shri Rajan and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (2) F.A.O. No. 82 of 1988 Shri Satpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Shri S.K.Bansal, Advocate. Versus Smt.Lado Devi and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (3) F.A.O. No. 83 of 1988 Shri Satpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Shri S.K.Bansal, Advocate. Versus Daya Nand and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. F.A.O.No.81 of 1988 -2- ... (4) F.A.O. No. 84 of 1988 Shri Satpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Shri S.K.Bansal, Advocate. Versus Shri Rajan and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (5) F.A.O. No. 85 of 1988 Shri Satpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Shri S.K.Bansal, Advocate. Versus Smt.Anita Kumari and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. (6) F.A.O. No. 86 of 1988 Shri Satpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Shri S.K.Bansal, Advocate. Versus Daryao Singh and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. Date of Decision: 16.10.2008 F.A.O.No.81 of 1988 -3- ... CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned six appeals which have been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle against a common award dated 3.10.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T.Case Nos. 18 to 22 of 1986 and 12 & 13 of 1987. The vehicle, namely, truck bearing registration no. DEG-32, was involved in an accident which took place on 14.5.1986. As many as seven claim petitions referred above had been filed by the claimants which have been allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned award. The appellant has sought to deny his liability on the ground that the deceased persons, as also the injured persons were travelling in the offending truck as labourers engaged by him for off-loading the dowry articles. However, a perusal of the impugned award belies the contention of the appellant. It is evident that the appellant himself had given the first version to the police stating that the marriage party had engaged the F.A.O.No.81 of 1988 -4- ... truck for being ferried. Besides, there is ample evidence to show that the version now sought to be given by the appellant is incorrect. One of the deceased persons in the accident was the father of the appellant himself. It is not conceivable that the appellant would engage his own father for doing labour work, especially when he was 72 years old. It is clear from the record that the deceased persons, who were travelling in the offending truck were gratuitous passengers and were not covered within the policy of the insurance taken out by the appellant. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in Dr.T.V.Jose Versus Chacko P.M. Alias Thankarchana and others, AIR 2001 S.C. 3939, the benefit of the insurance policy cannot enure to the appellant as the offending vehicle was being driven contrary to its terms. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed. October 16,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge