F.A.O.NO. 1193 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1193 OF 2009 Date of decision:16th September, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Kitabo Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, 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 appeal by the Insurer challenging the liability on the ground that the deceased was a traveller on a mud guard and he was not required to be covered by the terms of the policy. The contention on behalf of the claimants is that the Insurance Company has covered the risk for the labourer in the vehicle and that cannot exclude a driver in any way required to be covered under the terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. I have held in certain decisions that the tractor is not F.A.O.NO. 1193 OF 2009 2 designed to carry passengers and there would be no liability for an insurance cover for a person other than the driver in The New India Assurance Company Limited versus Surinder Kaur in FAO No. 635 of 2005, decided in August, 2010 and United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunita Devi and others in FAO NO. 2656 of 2007, decided on 12.08.2010. An insurance is not available and the claim against the insurer cannot be done. I do not obtain any explanation from the counsel for the insurer as to how two workmen have been covered for risk to death or bodily injury for a tractor. I would hold this court has itself taken a decision in United India Insurance Company limited vs. Smt. Santra Devi and others in FAO NO. 15 of 1998, decided on 5.08.2010 that for a negligent act done by a labourer on sitting on a tractor, if it ultimately results in death, a claim would be possible under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer relied on a judgment of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus C.I.Abraham (2009) ACJ 492 that a traveller in mud guard is not entitled to cover for insurance. I have already pointed out that this Court itself has taken decision that a traveller in mud guard shall not be entitled to cover for insurance but I am resting the liability on the insurer in a special situation obtaining through a term of policy that covers a risk to a labourer travelling in a tractor. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to contend that the labourer must be understood as a labourer in trolley. A policy of F.A.O.NO. 1193 OF 2009 3 Insurance is independently takes for a tractor and it cannot understood that an insurance for a tractor would also be an insurance for a trolley. A labourer who would be required to be carried in trolley would not be required to be covered in an insurance for the tractor. If it is so done, I would only hold that the insurer to be liable. 4. In view of the said circumstances arising by the term of the policy, I reject the contention of the insurer that a traveller sitting on a mud guard is not entitled to policy of insurance cover. The appeal by the insurer is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 16th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik