FAO No.571 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj No.70-CII of 1999 FAO No.571 of 1999 Date of Decision.17.09.2010 2. X Obj No.71-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.572 of 1999 National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Vishan Devi widow of Sh. Khem Chand and others ......Respondents 3. X Obj No.72-CII of 1999 in/and FAO No.573 of 1999 National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Jyoti widow of Sh. Suresh Kumar, aged about 22 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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. All the three cases arise out of the claim at the instance of the persons, who are representatives of the deceased, who had taken a lift in a goods carriage, which was carrying sand. All the FAO No.571 of 1999 -2- persons seated themselves over the sand and the vehicle capsized, all the three died. It was the contention of the claimants that they had loaded the rehris into the truck and they were also travelling along with the goods. This aspect was found by the Tribunal to afford the protection of a compulsory insurance to persons including the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle. The learned Senior Counsel would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others JT 2007(12) 319 that gave a meaning to the expression travelling in the vehicle in a goods carriage to mean only persons travelling in the cabin of the vehicle and traveling in the goods itself does not entitle any one protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was laying down the law in a situation of a person, who was travelling as a passenger in a goods carriage and the evidence was that the claimant was carrying tamarind in the lorry which was belonging to him and he borrowed the lorry along with the load of tamarind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order the High Court and allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company to hold that even such owners cannot be travel in any place other than the cabin. The deceased persons were literally being transported in a precarious fashion in a place where they were not entitled to sit. They were not definitely entitled to be covered under the policy of insurance company. 2. Even apart from the fact that the deceased did not have a valid insurance for an accident resulting in their death, the insurance company has another string to add to its bow viz., the FAO No.571 of 1999 -3- driver did not have a valid driving licence and it was sought to be proved by examining the official from the Licensing Authority at Patiala and Una. The licence was said to have been issued at Una and purported to have been renewed at Patiala. There was clear evidence that the licence had not been issued to the driver. The Tribunal underplayed the overall evidence to say that the insurance company would not take a defence to deny liability to 3rd parties and should always be found liable to compensate the third parties. 3. The liability cast on the insurer is erroneous and the award passed against the insurer shall be set aside. However, it seems that the entire award had been deposited before the Tribunal and the counsel is unable to say whether the amounts are still in deposit or they have been withdrawn. In the findings that I have given, setting aside the award of the Tribunal, the Claimants shall still come to no harm if they have recovered already the amount or not. The entitlement of the insurance company shall be to recover the same against the owner/insured of the truck, which was involved in the accident. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. 4. There are cross appeals also seeking for enhancement of claims. There is no representation for the claimants. The cross appeals are dismissed for default of appearance and non- prosecution. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 17, 2010 Pankaj*