IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3948 of 2006 Date of decision:22.07.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Neelam and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.3949 of 2006 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Dharam Singh and others ....Respondents III. FAO No.3950 of 2006 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Inderpal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate,for the appellant. None for the respondents. ----- 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.3948 of 2006 - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) In all the above three appeals, the point for consideration is whether fare paying passengers in a goods vehicle are entitled to an insurance cover and whether a right of action will be available against the insurer. There is no scope for a compulsory insurance otherwise than for a workman to whom the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable or for owners of goods travelling with goods, as provided under Section 147 of the MV Act. A gratuitous passenger is not a person to whom there is any insurance cover. The Insurance Company cannot therefore be made liable for the same. This has been laid down in a catena of decisions commencing from New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Asha Rani and others-2001(3) PLR 637. The awards passed against the insurer are set aside and the appeals are allowed. If during the appeal, any amount has been recovered by the claimants from the insurer, the same shall not be recovered from them again but the right of recovery will subsist only for the insured. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.07.2010 sanjeev