IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2014 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:22.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Angrej Kaur and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.2015 of 2002 (O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Raju and others ...Respondents III. FAO No.2016 of 2002 (O&M) The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Khan Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.N.K.Khosla, 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 award on the ground that Tarsem Kumar, who died in the accident, was a FAO No.2014 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - passenger in a goods carriage and the policy of insurance being an Act policy, the insurer will not be liable for a passenger carried in a goods carriage. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Asha Rani and others-2001(3) PLR 637. The Tribunal observed that this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was being reconsidered by a larger Bench and, therefore, the decision in Satpal Singh's case must be followed. On the other hand, Satpal Singh's case was expressly overruled in so far as it laid down that the passenger in a goods vehicle will also be covered without reference to the amendment made to the Act in 1994. There is no reconsideration of the decision in Asha Rani's case and the judgment still holds the field. The Tribunal on its own finding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle ought not to have made the Insurance Company liable. The liability cast on the Insurance Company is clearly wrong. 2. The award of the Tribunal is set aside in so far as it cast the liability on the insurer. The appeal is allowed. If during the pendency of the appeal, any amount has been recovered by the claimants from the insurer, the amount shall not be recovered from the claimants again but it shall be done against the insured only. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.07.2010 sanjeev