IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.78 of 2004 Decided on: 30.3.2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant. VERSUS Satish Kumar & ors. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Virender Rathore, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.Ajit Saklani, Advocate vice Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. Mr.Ravinder Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur, Civil Division at 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Rampur Bushahar, dated 14.1.2004 whereby a sum of Rs.12,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant for the alleged loss suffered by him on account of the apples damaged which were being carried in the truck which met with an motor vehicle accident. The only question which arises in this case is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition. So far as the question regarding goods being carried in the goods vehicle is concerned, this question is no longer res integra. The following questions were referred for the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court:- 1. What meaning should be assigned to the phrase “any property of a third party” occurring in Section 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle can be termed to be property of a third party? …3… The Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment reported in FAO No.97 of 1999, Sh.Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. Sh.Bachan Singh & ors. ACJ, 2010 (II) 1229 answered the aforesaid questions in the following terms:- 1. The phrase “any property of a third party” occurring in Sections 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act will mean property which is outside the goods vehicle and not being carried in the goods vehicle. 2. The second question is answered by holding that the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed to be property of a third party. It is thus obvious that the goods being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed as property of a third party and, therefore, no petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would lie and the remedy of the owner, if any, is only under the Carriers Act, 1865. Therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction and is …4… accordingly set aside. It is made clear that the owner of the goods shall be at liberty to take any other remedy which may be available to him under law. The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company shall have the right to contest the same on all grounds. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 30, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge.