IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.265 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision:09.12.2010 Kaushalya Rani and others ....Appellants versus Banarsi Dass and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.2021 of 1994 (O&M) Banarsi Dass ....Appellant versus Kaushalya Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate, for the New India Assurance Company. None for others. ---- 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. Both these cases arise out of claim for compensation which were awarded in favour of the claimants only against the owner of the vehicle but the Insurance Company had been exonerated. The appellant is not present and I proceed to dispose of the cases on merits and not dismiss them for default since the point urged in appeal is essentially a FAO No.265 of 1995 (O&M) - 2 - point of law and their presence or otherwise ought not to make a differerence. The claimants would contend that the petitioners were owners of goods travelling along with the goods in a goods carriage. It was contended that the carrot bags were being transported and the deceased persons were also travelling in the same vehicle. The provision for compulsory insurance cover for owners or representatives of the owners of goods being entitled to insurance cover has come through an amendment to Section 147 by Act 54 of 1994 that came into effect on 14.11.1994. The accident had taken place on 19.02.1992 and there could be no liability for an insurer in an Act policy which does not spell out a cover for passengers in a goods carriage. This issue has also already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Versus Asha Rani-(2003) 2 SCC 223 that has explained the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal's case to hold that in relation to accidents that have taken place before the amendment, there was no scope for making the insurer liable. 2. The exoneration of the Insurance Company, under the circumstances, was justified and the appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.12.2010 sanjeev IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2021 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:09.12.2010 Banarsi Dass ....Appellant versus Kaushalya Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTIC