FAO No.7085 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7085 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 14.02.2011 Surjeet Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of Amar Model Farm, Amar Vihar, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar (owner of tractor trolley No.HR- 02G-2092) ......Appellant Versus Sunita Devi wife of Phool Chand, aged 42 years and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellant. 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 owner/driver is in appeal challenging the recovery rights granted to the insurance company in a claim at the instance of some persons said to be labourers and who were travelling on the mudguard of the tractor. The persons, who were loadmen and who could have the benefit of protection for an insurance cover ought to be persons travelling in a place assigned to them. The tractor by itself is not passenger carrying vehicle and if they were seen travelling on the mudguard then it should only be taken that there had been a breach of violation of terms of policy and a recovery right iussued for the insurer against the owner and driver cannot be found fault with. This Court had occasions to deal with a position of law obtaining to right of FAO No.7085 of 2010 (O&M) -2- enforcement of a claim by the representatives of the deceased, who was travelling on the mudguard in at least three decisions in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gurmel Kaur and others in FAO No.5063 of 2006, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Surender Kaur and others in FAO No.635 of 2005 dated 01.09.2010 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramjilal and others in FAO No.5111 of 2006 dated 24.08.2010. This court has already referred to decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising on the same point. 2. The award in the manner in which it has been passed is justified and I find no reason to interfere with the award. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 14, 2011 Pankaj*