IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.51-CII of 2003 in/and FAO No.1240 of 2002 Date of decision:20.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Satiya Devi and others ....Respondents Present: Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate, and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Mandeep S. Bedi, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Gauri Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent/cross objectors. ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal contending that the deceased who was travelling in the truck was a gratuitous passenger and the representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the benefit of insurance cover. 2. The averment in the claim petition was that the deceased was an employee of the owner and he was dropped at Madhopur while others had gone to Vaishno Devi to have darshan and while the vehicle was returning, it was again picked up at Madhopur when after a while, the owner of the vehicle, who was driving, had involved the vehicle in an Cross Objection No.51-CII of 2003in/and FAO No.1240 of 2002 - 2 - accident that resulted grievous injuries to the deceased and after a prolonged illness from 10.11.1999, the date of the accident to 15.04.2001, he lay paralyzed in the hospital and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The compensation was therefore claimed against the owner and the insurer for the fatal injuries resulting in the accident. 3. To the contention by the learned counsel that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that he was a workman and that he was not a gratuitous passenger. A workman who shall be protected shall be a person, who dies during and in the course of employment who is entitled to travel in the goods vehicle. Instances where persons are employed for loading or unloading or a cleaner or driver or a person associated in some form of activity connected with the transport could well travel in a goods transport vehicle and make the insurer liable. A workman of the owner/ employer who was travelling in the goods vehicle along with others devotees is not a person, who is employed for the purpose of goods transport nor could he be expected to be travelling in a goods carriage, when at the time, there was no transport of goods which was involved for which purpose he had been employed. A mere status of a person as a workman does not make him entitled to travel in a goods carriage unless the employment itself was connected to a transport of some goods in the carriage and he was performing his duty connected with such transport. Persons, who are transported in a goods carriage for darshan cannot be carried in a goods carriage and, therefore, such an employment cannot provide to him or representative an insurance cover contemplated under Cross Objection No.51-CII of 2003in/and FAO No.1240 of 2002 - 3 - Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I, therefore, hold that the representatives cannot lawfully prosecute a claim against the Insurance Company. The award passed against the insurer is not tenable in law in view of the law laid down in New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Asha Rani and others-2001(3) PLR 637. The award against the insurer, under the circumstances, therefore, is set aside. 4. There is a claim for enhancement of compensation by the representatives on a plea that the deceased was 21 years of age and the claimants were the widow and the mother and dependent brothers and sisters. He was said to be earning Rs.5,000/- and the Tribunal accepted the said income and provided for compensation. The learned counsel would contend that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was 9 which was grossly low. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and the contribution to the family shall have reduced over a period of time, I will make deduction for personal expenses at 50% and take the monthly contribution to the family to be at Rs.2,500/- and adopt the multiplier of 18 for a person, who was aged 21 years and the resultant figure would be Rs.5,40,000/-. I would also provide for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the mother and another Rs.5,000/- for loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, the total would come to Rs.5,50,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the payment against the owner/insured only. 5. The mother will be entitled to half the amount and the remaining half shall be divided amongst the other claimants namely, Cross Objection No.51-CII of 2003in/and FAO No.1240 of 2002 - 4 - claimants 2 to 4. If any of the claimants is minor, the same shall be retained in bank deposit yielding interest quarterly and the same shall be paid to the mother for maintenance and expenses and the amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn after the respective majority of the minors. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, if any amount has been recovered by the claimants from the Insurance Company, the insurer shall not claim any refund from the claimants but shall enforce the same only against the insured/owner of the vehicle. The enhancement of compensation as determined by this Court shall also be recovered only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the insurer. 7. The appeal and the cross appeal are allowed in the manner indicated above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.08.2010 sanjeev