L.P.A.No. 931 of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision : 31.10.2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant. VERSUS Angrejo and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate, for respondents No. 9 and 10 --- 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? M.M.KUMAR,J. The instant appeal filed under Clause x of the Letters Patent by National Insurance Co., is directed against order dated 21.12.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in F.A.O. No. 3485 of 1999. The Learned Single Judge has noticed that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to accident, the dependency and the amount of compensation were not in dispute. However, the learned Single Judge considered the legal question whether the National Insurance L.P.A.No. 931 of 2002. 2 Company ( for brevity 'the Insurance Company') with whom the vehicle was insured was liable to pay compensation or owner of the vehicle were required to pay the compensation. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of “New India Insurance Company v. Shri Sat Pal Singh-Vol. CXXIV-(2000-1) PLR 464, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and modified the judgment to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants was to be paid by the owner as well as the Insurance Company jointly and severally. It is pertinent to notice that in Shri Sat Pal's case (supra), it was held that “under the new Act, an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in vehicle of any type of class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers were of no avail while considering the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force.” It is further noticeable that the judgment in Shri Sat Pal's case (supra), was holding field when the learned Single Judge decided the appeal filed by the owners-driver-respondents on 21.12.2001. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the judgment in Shri Sat Pal's case (supra), has been specifically overruled in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and others, JT 2002(10) 162. She has drawn our attention to the observation made in para No.10 of the L.P.A.No. 931 of 2002. 3 judgment where the earlier judgment in Shri Sat Pal's case (supra) stands overruled. She has also placed reliance on another judgment rendered in the case of M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Ors. JT 2004(1) SC 15 for the same proposition. Mr. S.K.Garg, learned counsel for the owner- Driver-respondents has not been able to successfully distinguish the judgment rendered in Asha Rani's case (supra). Therefore, it has to be concluded that order passed by the learned Single Judge in Shri Sat Pal's case (supra), cannot be sustained. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the owner- driver-respondents has,however, submitted that on account of law prevailing at the time of decision rendered by the Learned Single Judge on 21.12.2001, no other issue was decided, although, a number of pleas were raised. In that regard he has placed reliance on the ground of appeal filed by the owner-driver-respondents in the first appeal where the Award of the Tribunal dated 9.9.1999 was challenged. He has submitted that all those issues may be kept open for him to be raised. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2001 is not sustainable as it is primarily based on the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sat Pal's case (supra), which stands overruled in Asha Rani's case (supra). The peculiar facts revealed in the present case would impel L.P.A.No. 931 of 2002. 4 us to accept the submission made by Mr. Garg that other issues raised before the learned Single Judge were not decided primarily for the reasons that the matter was found covered by the judgment rendered in Shri Sat Pal's case (supra), Therefore, we set aside the order dated 21.12.2001 and remand the case to the First Appellate Court to decide the same in accordance with law.It is made clear that the parties shall be free to raise all other grounds before the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 31.10.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE