IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3931 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision:24.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Naresh and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.3932 of 2004 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Santra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Navin Kapur, 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. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability in both the cases. 2. In FAO No.3931 of 2004, the subject of challenge is an award passed for injuries suffered by a school student who had got into the truck which was a goods carriage and the Court found the child to be FAO No.3931 of 2004 (O&M) - 2 - an owner of the goods travelling along with the goods. The child carrying a school bag cannot be said to be carry “goods” in the manner defined under MV Act. Goods cannot include personal effects or luggage which is meant to be carried in a vehicle in the manner defined under Section 2(13) of the MV Act. The understanding obtained by the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. This Court has dealt with this issue in its judgment in The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Bali Devi and others in FAO No.14-28 of 2006, decided on 07.09.2010. The child could not be treated as the owner of the goods to obtain a valid cover against the insured. At the time of admission of the appeal, the stay was declined and the appeal has been taken up for adjudication only for settling the inter se dispute between the insurer and the insured for violation of terms of policy. In view of the finding that I have come to that the passenger in a goods carriage travelling with school bag cannot be treated as owner of the goods in the manner contemplated under Section 147. I hold that the insurer shall be entitled to obtain recovery of the amount awarded from the insured/owner. 3. As regards the appeal in FAO No.3932 of 2004, it was a claim of the legal representatives of a deceased cleaner in the truck. The policy covers the risk to death or bodily injury for the driver and to two labourers. The contention of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was a cleaner and not a labourer. The expression for 'cleaner' is descriptive of what the labourer is required to do. The 'labourer' is generic expression and 'cleaner' is a specific description. The insurer is bound to cover the risk to the cleaner coming as thus within the FAO No.3931 of 2004 (O&M) - 3 - definition of the expression 'labourer' in the terms of the policy. The Insurance Company will, therefore, be liable and the award casting liability on it is justified. The appeal in FAO No.3932 of 2004 is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.09.2010 sanjeev