FAO No.3654 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3654 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2011 Virender Kumar ... Appellant Versus Smt. Rahisan and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, for the appellant. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The only point urged in appeal by the appellant is the tenability of the order passed by the Tribunal declining the right of indemnity to the owner for alleged breach of terms of the policy. The vehicle involved in the accident was admittedly a Goods Carrying Vehicle and the policy of insurance had been issued as a Commercial Vehicles Insurance “B” Policy and the claimants were the representatives of the deceased, who were traveling in the ill-fated vehicle. The Tribunal found that the deceased was not entitled to travel in the vehicle as a passenger and denied the right of indemnity to the Insured. 2. Learned counsel argues that the decision is erroneous, since the insured had paid extra premium for covering the risk as contemplated in IMT- 14 being the legal liability to non-fare paying passenger who is not employee FAO No.3654 of 1999 -2- of the Insured. The motor tariff conforms to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act that requires a compulsory insurance cover for the owner or the representative of the owner of the goods being transported in the vehicle. Learned counsel points out that at the time when the accident had taken place, milk cans were being transported and he was himself a Charter of the truck. The liability of the Insurance Company is founded both by the terms of the contract and the requirements of policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The exoneration of the Insurance Company was clearly erroneous. 3. The award is modified to make the Insurer liable and also indemnify the appellant. The appeal is allowed. MAY 27, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE