F.A.O.NO. 4182 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4182 OF 2009 Date of decision:8th September, 2010 Pankaj son of Om Parkash, resident of Randeria Mohall, Kaithal.(Owner of Tata 407 bearing registration no. HR- 64-0027) .......Appellant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Kaithal and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the Insurance Companu. 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 is by the owner of the vehicle of a goods carriage to whom the right of indemnity was refused for a claim arising out of motor accident. Admittedly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was transporting Mangoes. The reference to existence of mangoes in the vehicle is found even in the FIR. It was contended that the persons travelling were workmen and they had been covered for risk under the terms of the policy. The Tribunal found the plea of the owner that the workman was F.A.O.NO. 4182 OF 2009 2 not true. Though there was no evidence contra that there were no goods or that the deceased was not the owner of the goods which was being transported, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling with owner along with the goods. That was also the very plea which is advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer that there was no proof that any payment had been made for transportation of goods. 2. In my view, whether any payment was proved to have been made was wholly irrelevant. Expression gratuitous passenger is always understood as a term other than the allusion to the person being owner of the goods that is transported. All under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) requires is that there shall be a compulsory insurance cover for a person who is the owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. The question whether any consideration was paid for the transportation or not is wholly irrelevant for the claim of Section 147 of the Act. If he is the owner of the goods in the vehicle which is a goods carriage then he shall be taken to be a person to whom the compulsory insurance policy under Section 147 of the Act is applicable. 3. The award of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company and excluding the right of indemnity to the owner is set aside. The insurer shall become liable and the appeal is allowed with a modification in the award directing the insurance company to not merely bear the liability for the claim arising out of the F.A.O.NO. 4182 OF 2009 3 accident but also fully indemnify the insured. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 8th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik