F.A.O No.3179 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No.3179 of 2005 Date of Decision. 27.10.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its regional office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager ......Appellant Versus Ravinder son of Hari Parkash resident of village Siwari, Sub Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the claimant was a passenger in a goods carriage and he was not entitled to be covered for risk arising out of an accident. While dealing with the issue and particularly after citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1 and other decisions, the Tribunal held that the claimant was an owner of the goods travelling with the goods and therefore, the said decision will not apply. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company reads out to me the evidence that admits the fact that the claimant had transported the goods through the insured's vehicle to Delhi at F.A.O No.3179 of 2005 -2- the Sabji Market and he was returning in the goods carriage after selling of goods. The benefit of compulsory insurance cover provided under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act would apply in case where the claimant is a passenger, who is the owner of the goods when the goods are being transported. If he had the benefit of transportation of the goods, his right to travel in a goods carriage ceases the moment the goods are out of the transport vehicle. It cannot become a one way passenger vehicle. It will continue only to be a goods carriage and if the goods had been transported already then it will afford no scope of a passenger in the capacity of owner of goods to be travelling in the same vehicle. The explanation of concept of an owner of the goods being carried in the vehicle must apply to a present state of affairs of the owner and the goods going by the vehicle in contemporaneous situation. The complainant was not entitled to travel in the vehicle and seek for an insurance cover for injury suffered in such an accident under the circumstances narrated above. 2. The award of the Tribunal in so far as it cast the liability on the insurer is set aside and the appeal by the insurer is allowed. However, if any portion of the awarded amount has been recovered by the claimant from the insurer, the right of recovery by the insurer shall avail only against the insured and not against the claimant. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 27, 2010 Pankaj*