IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.76 of 2005 Decided on: 29.3.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant. VERSUS Narinder Singh & anr. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Ms.Madhu Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.R.G.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.G.S.Rathore, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal is directed against the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan dated 21.4.2004 whereby a sum of Rs.1,08,475/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. Out of this amount, Rs.32,000/- has been awarded on account of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… the injury suffered by the claimant and Rs.76,475/- for loss of apple boxes and vegetable bags being carried by the claimant in the truck in question. The main question which arises in this case is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition. So far as the question regarding goods being carried in the goods vehicle is concerned, this question is no longer res integra. The following questions were referred for the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court:- 1. What meaning should be assigned to the phrase “any property of a third party” occurring in Section 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle can be termed to be property of a third party? The Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment reported in FAO No.97 of 1999, Sh.Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. Sh.Bachan Singh & ors. ACJ, 2010 …3… (II) 1229 answered the aforesaid questions in the following terms:- 1. The phrase “any property of a third party” occurring in Sections 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act will mean property which is outside the goods vehicle and not being carried in the goods vehicle. 2. The second question is answered by holding that the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed to be property of a third party. It is thus obvious that the goods being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed as property of a third party and, therefore, no petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would lie and the remedy of the owner, if any, is only under the Carriers Act, 1865. Therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal in so far as it has awarded Rs.76,475/- in respect of goods is set aside and the award on account of the injury suffered by the claimant amounting to Rs.32,000/- alongwith interest …4… as awarded by the learned Tribunal is upheld. It is made clear that the owner of the goods shall be at liberty to take any other remedy which may be available to him under law. The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company shall have the right to contest the same on all grounds. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 29, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge.