FAO No.5823 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5823 of 2002 Date of Decision. 22.09.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited having its regional office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Bachni Devi widow of Khazan Chand and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.5825 of 2002 United India Insurance Company Limited having its regional office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Kunj Lal son of Sagga Ram and others ......Respondents 3. FAO No.5827 of 2002 United India Insurance Company Limited having its regional office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Kartar Chand son of Thoru Ram and others ......Respondents 4. FAO No.5828 of 2002 United India Insurance Company Limited having its regional office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Parshotam Lal son of Gopal Chand and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- FAO No.5823 of 2002 -2- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the claimants, who were injured and the representatives of the deceased were all said to be passengers in a tractor trolley to go to a Satsang. A tractor with a trolley attached is a goods carriage and it is not designed to carry passengers either for hire or gratuitously. The requirement of a compulsory cover shall be available only to workman or owner of goods travelling along with the goods in the manner provided under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1 is a clear authority to the fact that the insurer cannot be made liable for death or bodily injury to persons who are being carried in a goods carriage, who do not qualify for insurance cover in the manner provided under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The award of the Tribunal casting the liability on the insurer is erroneous and it is set aside. The appeals of the insurance company are allowed. 4. There had been no stay of the awards and consequently, the insurer must have recovered the amount from the insured. The insurer shall exercise the right of recovery not against the claimants but against the insured/owner only. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 22, 2010 Pankaj*