IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.249 of 1999 Date of decision:15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Mukim and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, 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 of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling is the party in appeal challenging liability. The accident arose when the deceased along with his wife and son were travelling in the insured's truck from his native village to Faridabad to celebrate id. It dashed against yet another truck bearing No.HRC-6822. The claim petition had been filed only against the owner of the truck in which he was travelling and its insurer. The contention of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, there was no liability of insurer to cover the risk and indeed it was not so covered. The contentions of the claimants were that they FAO No.249 of 1999 - 2 - were going to Faridabad with their luggage in hand. Perhaps the assumption of the claimant was that the luggage could be treated as goods under the MV Act and their own status could be treated as owners of goods travelling along with the goods. Unfortunately, the goods defined under the MV Act specifically excludes luggage in the definition under Section 2(13), reproduced as under:- "goods" includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle” The persons are not required to be covered for death or bodily injury and, therefore, the claimants had no cause of action to pursue against the insurer for any negligence. The liability shall be only on the owner of the vehicle if there had been negligence of the driver. In this case, it appears even the driver of the truck died in the accident. The claimants had also contended that it was only the driver of the vehicle in which they were travelling was guilty of negligence. They did not make any averment against yet another truck which collided with the truck in which they were travelling. I therefore take the averment regarding the negligence of the driver as established in the manner in which it was pleaded but as regard the liablity, the insurer shall take no burden and the liability shall be only on the owner of the truck, who is arrayed as the third respondent in the appeal. 2. It is also contended that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. I am not entering such a controversy, for, I have rested FAO No.249 of 1999 - 3 - the judgment only on the issue of liability on the ground that the deceased was gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and a finding one or other cannot have a bearing to the decision already arrived herein. 3. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it makes the insurer liable, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.09.2010 sanjeev