IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 551 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 25, 2010 Vinod Kumar and another ....Appellants Versus Sheela Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.4. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Aggrieved of the award dated 24.10.2006 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 to 3 was allowed by granting them an amount of Rs.2,00,500/- as compensation alongwith interest and payable by the present appellants, they have filed the present appeal. According to the claimants, deceased Sube Singh was travelling in Mahendra Pickup bearing registration No.HR-61-1604 on 1.7.2003 at about 6.30 A.M. when the said vehicle met with an accident, as a result of which Sube Singh received injuries and died. F.A.O. No. 551 of 2007 -2- The appellants, who were driver and owner of the offending vehicle, opposed the claim petition by filing a joint reply wherein they denied the accident and involvement of the vehicle. According to the Insurance Company, which stood arrayed as respondent No.3 in the claim petition, the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and as it was being used for carrying passengers the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. After going through the evidence brought on the record, learned Tribunal held that the accident in question had taken place in a motor vehicular accident caused by driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants were held entitled to received an amount of Rs.2,00,500/- as compensation. However, as the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company was absolved of the liability and instead the entire liability was fastened on the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their able assistance. On perusal of the claim petition, it is revealed that no mention was made therein about the deceased siting on the offending vehicle alongwith the goods. The only pleading was that on 1.7.2003 at about 6.30 A.M., Sube Singh deceased boarded the offending vehicle for going to his village and he was sitting on the rear seat of the said vehicle. In FIR Ex.P1 lodged at the instance of PW2 Sri Parkash, it was F.A.O. No. 551 of 2007 -3- specifically mentioned therein that on 30.6.2003, his maternal uncle, namely, Sube Singh, had come to his house and on the next morning at about 6.30 A.M., he had given him a lift on his motor-cycle upto Bus Stand, Palhawas from where he boarded the offending vehicle for going back to his village. However, during his examination-in-chief as PW2, Sri Parkash stated that at the time of the accident, deceased was carrying household goods with him while sitting in the offending vehicle. This evidence was beyond the pleadings of the claimants. There is no evidence available on the file to establish that the deceased was carrying goods in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. In view of the fact that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger and not carrying any goods alongwith him in the offending Mahendra Pickup which was a goods carrying vehicle at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company has been rightly absolved of the liability by the learned Tribunal after placing reliance upon National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2006 (1) Accident Compensation Judicial Reports 210 = 2005(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 829. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the impugned award. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) May 25, 2010 JUDGE satish