F.A.O.NO. 2469 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2469 OF 2002 Date of decision:24th September, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO No. 337- 340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through Sh. L.P.Arora, Assistant Administrative Officer. .......Appellant Versus Shiksha Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal, denying the liability on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a tractor-trolley and there was no insurance cover for risk of death or bodily injury to make insurer liable. 2. Before the Tribunal evidence was laid through PW-2 who was a fellow traveller along with the deceased who gave evidence to the effect that he along with the deceased and four other persons had been engaged by the owner to load wooden logs after cutting the F.A.O.NO. 2469 OF 2002 2 timber and they were travelling along with the goods. He had also given evidence to the effect that the driver of the tractor stopped at two or three places and consumed liquor and started driving the vehicle rashly and took the katcha road instead of a proper pucca road which was available to reach the destination. This evidence was contested through the evidence of the owner of the tractor itself who said that the tractor-trolley no doubt was loaded but he had returned earlier and later came to know that the tractor capsized in a ditch and the deceased got killed by fall of the logs. According to him he was an unauthorised traveller and he had not engaged him. Between the evidence of PW-2 and the owner I would rather go with the evidence of a fellow traveller-PW-2 whose evidence is cogent and trustworthy. I would reject the evidence of the owner that he had merely loaded the goods but he had not authorised anyone to travel along with the goods or the deceased was not even his workman. It is an artificial evidence which I cannot believe. It is not the case that he had no timber cut and loaded in the tractor-trolley. He ought to have therefore, given also an evidence of the persons who actually did the job for him and how this deceased was not one amongst such workers who had done the job of felling the trees and loading the timber in the tractor-trolley. 3. If the evidence of PW-2 were to be accepted then it should only be seen that the deceased was a load man travelling in the tractor-trolley to whom insurance policy cover existed and entitled to F.A.O.NO. 2469 OF 2002 3 be covered for accident in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act that requires a compulsory insurance cover to persons who are required to be covered for liability under the Workmen Compensation Act. 4. The Tribunal has reasoned that there was nothing in the policy to prevent passengers from travelling in the goods carriage. It has not stated the correct law but I anchor liability on the insurer by a finding that deceased was a workman who was entitled to be statutorily covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 24th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik