K. Kannan, J. - (1.) ALL the appeals are at the instance of the Insurance Company denying liability on the ground that the injured persons, who are the claimants, were all passengers in a goods carriage and they were not required to be covered for insurance under the terms of the policy or under the provision of law.
(2.) AMONG the several claimants, the claimants in FAO No. 2660 of 2002 and in FAO No. 2661 of 2002 are persons, who have given evidence that they were Cleaners/labourers and they were also required to be covered. There is no denial that the policy provides a coverage to also loadman/workman employed by the owner/insured and, therefore, the claim emanating from them will have to be sustained and the Insurance Company shall become liable. FAO Nos. 2660 and 2661 of 2002 are, consequently, dismissed. As regards the other claimants, the claimants in FAO Nos. 2662 of 2002 was a police constable and he was sitting in the cabin of the truck along with the driver. The claimant in FAO No. 2663 of 2002 was a minor, aged 11 years, and the evidence was given to his father Jasmeer Singh that he was travelling in the vehicle along with his son. FAO No. 2664 of 2002 adverted to a claim by one Phool Chand and FAO No. 2665 of 2002 was a claim at the instance of Sohan Lal. Both of whom said that they were sitting in the truck for looking after the dowry articles which belonged to their acquaintance. While owners of goods travelling with the goods would be required to be covered, persons who load dowry articles which are in the nature of personal luggage did not qualify for any protection in terms of the definition of goods contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and in terms of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani and others : (2009) 2 SCC 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: Even if the contention of the owner of the vehicle that in the truck the goods offered by way of gift by the bride party were being transported is correct, the deceased and others could not have become the representatives of the owner of the goods. Even otherwise in view of the averments made in the claim petition and the first information report the said contention cannot be accepted. The award of the Tribunal inter alia states that there was no mention that dowry articles or some furniture, etc. were loaded in the vehicle. Furthermore in their depositions the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants themselves state that about 30 -40 persons were travelling in the tempo truck. All 30 -40 persons by no stretch of imagination could have been the representatives of the owners of goods, meaning thereby the articles of gift. That in this case also there were several persons travelling in the truck and they were all gratuitous passengers. The liability of the Insurance Company cannot, therefore, be found to be available.
(3.) THE Insurance Company could not have been made liable for the claims for passengers of goods in goods carriage who cannot be said to be owners of goods travelling along with the goods in the manner contemplated under Section 147 of the MV Act. The liability shall be only on the owner/insured and the Insurance Company shall be exonerated in all the cases in FAO Nos. 2662 to 2665 of 2002. The award against the insurer is set aside in the above said cases and the appeals are allowed.;