F.A.O.NOs. 1993 & 1994 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1993 OF 2010 Date of decision:11th November, 2010 M/s Front Line Multi Tech. Private Limited, Plot No. 50, Sector 5, IMT, Manesar, District Gurgaon through its Director Parveen Mehandiratta (Owner of the offending Pick up bearing No. HR-55D/1699) .......Appellant Versus Ved Parkash and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 1994 OF 2010 M/s Front Line Multi Tech. Private Limited, Plot No. 50, Sector 5, IMT, Manesar, District Gurgaon through its Director Parveen Mehandiratta (Owner of the offending Pick up bearing No. HR-55D/1699) .......Appellant Versus Jagdish and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 appeals are at the instance of the owner who has been saddled with liability, without being offered a right of indemnity from the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle insured was a F.A.O.NOs. 1993 & 1994 OF 2010 2 goods carriage and the persons travelling in the vehicle were admittedly gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal therefore, held that there was no requirement of compulsory insurance for gratutious passengers under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and exonerated the insurance company. 2. In appeals it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the owner that even if they were gratuitous passengers in a transport vehicle, the insurance company was still be liable and owner will be entitled to indemnity. The proposition made is wholly untenable and conflicts with the well known position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and others (2003) 2 SCC 223. Learned counsel makes reference to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Gupta and others vs. M/s United Inida Insurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in 2009(1) ACJ 672, to contend that the Insurance Company will be liable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of liability of an insurer who was a gratutious passenger in a private vehicle. The liability to a gratutious passenger in a vehicle has been subject to controversy in few cases and that is with reference to how a passenger could be considered to be “any person being carried on a motor vehicle”. This judgment has no application to the case of gratutious passengers in a transport vehicle. As regards the liability of an insurer for a gratuitous passenger, it is and open and shut situation covered comprehensively with reference to Section 147 of the Act that F.A.O.NOs. 1993 & 1994 OF 2010 3 protects only two classes of persons 1) persons who are owners of goods being carried along with the goods and 2) workmen who are required to be covered under the Workmen Compensation Act, including a driver or a conductor. No other class of persons are compulsorily required to be covered by policy of insurance. 3. The contentions raised in appeals by the owner seeking for right of indemnity from the insurer is not in accordance with law and the pleas are rejected. 4. The awards of the Tribunal are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 11th November, 2010 Shivani Kaushik