F.A.O.NO. 1459 OF 1996 and Civil Revision No. 4861 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1459 OF 1996 Date of decision:5th October, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ludhiana through Shri M.S.Aggarwal, Dy. Manager, Regional Office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market. .......Appellant Versus Janak Arora and others ........Respondents Civil Revision No. 4861 of 1996 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ludhiana through Shri M.S.Aggarwal, Dy. Manager, Regional Office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market. .......Appellant Versus Shelika Sharma and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. Mr. Amit Puri, Advocate, for Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 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. At the previous hearing, I had directed the summoning of a witness from the Licencing Authority at Jaipur to show that the F.A.O.NO. 1459 OF 1996 and Civil Revision No. 4861 of 1996 2 driver did not have a valid driving licence. The witness has not come present and the counsel appearing for the Insurer is unable to vouch for the fact whether the summons have been served or not. I do not think that the case must be adjourned only for this purpose. I take up the case for argument on the basis of records available. 2. The claims arose out of injuries suffered by some school children who were being transported in truck trolley for Navratara's celebration. The Insurance Company took up the plea that there had been violation of terms of policy and tractor-trolley which was insured for agricultural purpose could not be used for transporting people. The Tribunal observed that only first page of the said insurance had been filed and it was not sufficient to find whether there was any violation of the terms of the policy or not. 3. A tractor-trolley is admitted by a goods carriage. The school children, on their own showing had been going only for some celebrations. There cannot be a permission or a term of policy that can provide for transporting passengers in a goods carriage. The exception shall be only for owner of goods travelling along with the goods or load man or workman who are required to be covered for risk under Workmen's Compensation Act. Children studying in school could not come for such qualification. Even without reference to all the pages of the policy of insurance, I would only see the case as presenting a situation of impermissibility of allowing passengers to go in goods carriage and impermissibility of securing a policy of insurance F.A.O.NO. 1459 OF 1996 and Civil Revision No. 4861 of 1996 3 to cover the risk for such passengers. The liability shall be only on the owner of the vehicle in which the children were travelling or with another offending vehicle and the insurance company cannot be made liable. 4. The appeal filed against the claimants has already been dismissed by Bench of this Court on 15.05.1996 and having regard to such an order, I will restrict the right of insurer to recover the same against the insured. The claimants' right, if it is not fully satisfied, shall be only against the insured and not against the insurer. The appeal and the civil revision are allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 5th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik