F.A.O.NO. 5283 OF 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 5283 OF 2004 Date of decision:30th August, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Smt. Sajna Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, 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 Insurance Company is in appeal denying the liability on the ground that the deceased person was travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor to whom there was no insurance cover. The evidence was that the deceased was a tailor and was running a tailoring house and he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. His presence in the trolley was not explained in any capacity as a workmen employed to whom the benefit F.A.O.NO. 5283 OF 2004 2 under Workmen Compensation Act was available. Nor was he shown to be a person who was the owner of the goods travelling in trolley. 2. On the other hand, the trolley had been laiden with crushed stones and deceased seated himself on the heap of stones. He fell down and died when the trolley was still proceeded. The claim had been made under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Although the Insurance Company contended that the insurance company will not liable at all for any claim arising out of such an incident, the deceased being a gratuitous passenger in goods carriage, examine the liability to defend the claimants. The award having regard to the fact that the Division Bench while admitting the appeal affirmed the award against the claimants and dismissed the appeal against them. It has directed a issue of notice vide order dated 30.11.2004, only against the owner and the driver. 4. The owner had committed a breach of terms of policy in allowing the gratuitous passenger to travel in a goods carriage. Consequently, he shall not have right to be indemnified by the insured. The insurer also has an objection with reference to driving licence of the driver but I do not propose to consider the same. Having regard to the fact that the owner shall become liable by the only fact that the deceased was an unauthorised traveller in a goods carriage and that is good enough reason for the insurer to interfere in his right of recovery. 5. The award of the Tribunal is under circumstance is F.A.O.NO. 5283 OF 2004 3 modified to satisfy the claim of the claimants and proceed to recover the same against the owner insured of the vehicle. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 30th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik