FAO No.91 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.91 of 2006 Date of Decision. 18.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO Nos.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Smt. Murti Devi widow of Munni Lal son of Surat Singh aged 54 years and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate and Mr. Manvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 on appeal challenging the award on the ground of liability stating that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. To a contention by the insurance company that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger to whom or his representative the benefit of insurance cover will not avail, the Tribunal relied on the written statement filed by the respondent where he had admitted that the deceased along with other persons were travelling in the vehicle with the household articles, which were to be delivered at Rajaund and they were not paid passengers. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant FAO No.91 of 2006 -2- would contend that the statement that the deceased was owner of the goods vehicle was travelling with the goods was not true and it had been borne out through evidence of PW-3, Mohan Lal that the deceased and he had known the driver and they were travelling with the vehicle to go to their own village. There was a halting admission on his part that he had paid fare and he later withdrew it and say that he did not make the fare. This prevarication of the witness, according to the learned counsel, would betray the falsity of the contention that the deceased was owner of the goods travelling with the goods. On a stand alone basis, the evidence of a witness on the side of the claimant admitting to a travel gratuitously or after payment of fare would bind the claimants as well. The decision of the Tribunal has been rendered more on an admission contained in the written statement of the respondent about the circumstances under which the presence of the deceased in a goods carriage was taken. It is a statutory mandate secured under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the owner of the goods travelling with the goods is also covered. The insurer shall, therefore, be liable and in this case it has been so found, only on the basis of pleadings. The award is perfectly justified and suffers from no vice for interference in appeal. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 18, 2010 Pankaj*