IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) F.A.O. No. 81 of 1988
Shri Satpal.
....... Appellant through Shri
Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for Shri S.K.Bansal,
Advocate.
Versus
Shri Rajan and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(2) F.A.O. No. 82 of 1988
Shri Satpal.
....... Appellant through Shri
Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for Shri S.K.Bansal,
Advocate.
Versus
Smt.Lado Devi and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(3) F.A.O. No. 83 of 1988
Shri Satpal.
....... Appellant through Shri
Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for Shri S.K.Bansal,
Advocate.
Versus
Daya Nand and another.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
F.A.O.No.81 of 1988
-2-
...
(4) F.A.O. No. 84 of 1988
Shri Satpal.
....... Appellant through Shri
Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for Shri S.K.Bansal,
Advocate.
Versus
Shri Rajan and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(5) F.A.O. No. 85 of 1988
Shri Satpal.
....... Appellant through Shri
Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for Shri S.K.Bansal,
Advocate.
Versus
Smt.Anita Kumari and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(6) F.A.O. No. 86 of 1988
Shri Satpal.
....... Appellant through Shri
Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for Shri S.K.Bansal,
Advocate.
Versus
Daryao Singh and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
Date of Decision: 16.10.2008
F.A.O.No.81 of 1988
-3-
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned six appeals
which have been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle against a
common award dated 3.10.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, `the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T.Case Nos. 18 to 22
of 1986 and 12 & 13 of 1987.
The vehicle, namely, truck bearing registration no. DEG-32,
was involved in an accident which took place on 14.5.1986.
As many as seven claim petitions referred above had been filed
by the claimants which have been allowed by the Tribunal vide the
impugned award.
The appellant has sought to deny his liability on the ground that
the deceased persons, as also the injured persons were travelling in the
offending truck as labourers engaged by him for off-loading the dowry
articles.
However, a perusal of the impugned award belies the
contention of the appellant. It is evident that the appellant himself had given
the first version to the police stating that the marriage party had engaged the
F.A.O.No.81 of 1988
-4-
…
truck for being ferried. Besides, there is ample evidence to show that the
version now sought to be given by the appellant is incorrect. One of the
deceased persons in the accident was the father of the appellant himself. It is
not conceivable that the appellant would engage his own father for doing
labour work, especially when he was 72 years old.
It is clear from the record that the deceased persons, who were
travelling in the offending truck were gratuitous passengers and were not
covered within the policy of the insurance taken out by the appellant.
In this view of the matter and keeping in view the observations
of the Apex Court in Dr.T.V.Jose Versus Chacko P.M. Alias Thankarchana
and others, AIR 2001 S.C. 3939, the benefit of the insurance policy cannot
enure to the appellant as the offending vehicle was being driven contrary to
its terms.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are
dismissed.
October 16,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge