FAO No.2488 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2488 of 2003 Date of Decision. 09.07.2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its Regional Office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through Shri S.S. Bedi, Asstt. Manager duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Palwinder Kaur Wd/o Tarlok Singh S/o Fauja Singh and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. P.S. Saini, 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 pleads exclusion of liability in the appeal filed on the ground that the insurer will not be liable for a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal, however, reasoned that it had gone through the pleadings and there is a specific averment that he was an employee in the company that owned the Tipper vehicle and he was, therefore, taken as a workman travelling in the Tipper. The statutory cover under Section 147(2) would include the risk of accident to a workman to hold the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. In the grounds of appeal, it has only been alleged that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and I do not find any specific FAO No.2488 of 2003 -2- ground taken for challenging the finding of the Tribunal that he was a workman in the company and he was, therefore, being carried in the Tipper vehicle as such workman. Learned counsel vehemently contends that if the person was a workman, it must be proved by the claimants. In a case where an averment is made in the petition and if it is not elicited in the cross-examination that the deceased was not a workman at all and further when a finding is also recorded against the insurer, the insurer cannot urge at the time of arguments that the deceased was not a workman. 3. The award granted by the Tribunal casting the liability on the insurance company is, under the circumstances, perfectly justified and it calls for no interference in appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 09, 2010 Pankaj*