F.A.O No.79 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No.79 of 1994 Date of Decision.08.11.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Urban Estate, Ambala City, having regional office at Sector 8, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Jaspal Singh s/o Shri Sardha Singh resident of village Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.465 of 1994 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Urban Estate, Ambala City, having regional office at Sector 8, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Smt. Surinder Kaur wife of Shri Gurcharan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the DTC. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. 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) F.A.O No.79 of 1994 -2- 1. The appeals in FAO No.79 and 465 of 1994 arise out of the same accident and the claim in FAO No.79 of 1994 deals with claim for compensation for injury suffered and FAO No.465 of 1994 deals with the case of compensation for death of a person who was said to be a cleaner employed in the truck. 2. The accident took place by virtue of a collision between insured’s truck and bus. The Tribunal found the driver of the truck alone to be responsible for the accident and fastened the liability on the insurer towards the appellant before the Court. 3. As regards the liability fastened on the insurer in FAO No.79 of 1994, the contention of the learned counsel was that the accident took place on 22.06.1990 and the claimant was a person, who was travelling along with the buffaloes loaded on the truck. His contention was that the amendment in the law providing for compulsory insurance for owner of the goods travelling with the vehicle arose only by virtue of an amendment under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act that came into effect on 14.11.1994 and the accident having taken place on 22.06.1990, there was no legal liability to satisfy the claim of a person, who was a passenger in a goods carriage. I accept the contention raised on behalf of the insurance company and satisfy the award against the insurance company for the injury suffered by the claimant. The right of enforcement of the award shall avail to the claimant only against the owner of the truck in which he was travelling for the negligent conduct of driving by his employee namely the driver of the truck. FAO No.79 of 1994 is allowed on the above terms. F.A.O No.79 of 1994 -3- 4. As regards the contention in FAO No.456 of 1994, the deceased was said to be a cleaner and evidence had been adduced that he had been employed as a cleaner and that the representatives were entitled to compensation against the insurer, there having been a need for compulsory insurance under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act for death of a person who was entitled to be treated as a workman to claim the benefit of Workmen’s Compensation Act. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer would contend that there was no documentary proof of his employment and there was no more than a mere assertion that he was a workman. It must be borne in mind that the owner insured was himself not examined to deny the employment. The best evidence could have been given only by the insured to displace the oral assertions made by the representatives of the deceased. The same having not been done there was no error in accepting the contention that he was a workman and making the insurer liable for the claim arising out of death of the cleaner- workman. 5. The award passed in favour of the representatives of the deceased is, therefore, upheld and the appeal in FAO No.456 of 1994 is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 08, 2010 Pankaj*