IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.685 of 1993(O&M) Date of decision:08.02.2011 Jagdish and another ....Appellants versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents 2 to 6. ---- 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 appeal by the owner and the driver addresses the issue of a right of indemnity for a death resulting to a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage. It is a pre-amendment situation of an accident taking place before Act 54 of 94 that was introduced w.e.f. 14.11.1994 to Section 147 making compulsory a policy of insurance also to owners of goods accompanying the goods in a goods carriage. The learned counsel points out that under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, an owner of the goods could also accompany the goods in a goods vehicle. FAO No.685 of 1993(O&M) - 2 - This would only show that such an owner travelling in a goods carriage was not an unauthorized passenger, it could not also go to the extent of showing that the owner or driver had not committed any violation of terms of the policy. 2. The point, however, is whether a policy of insurance existed to cover the risk for such a person. The policy, in this case, was an Act policy that covers the risk only to a third party and the persons, who were required to be carried in the vehicle in the manner provided under Section 147 in its unamended form prior to Act 54 of 94. It is a simple case of no insurance being available for enforcement of a claim by the representatives against the insurer for want of a term in the policy to cover such risks. The award granted against the owner and driver, under the circumstances, was justified and I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.02.2011 sanjeev