1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan in M.A.C.P. No.4887/2002 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellants, original opponents no.1 & 2, were jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.3,85,000/- as compensation to respondents no.2 to 4 herein, original claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. The claim against original opponent no.3-Insurance Company was rejected.
2. A group of claim petitions, including the claim petition in question, came to be filed in connection with the vehicular accident that occurred on 05.05.2002 on the Metrana - Siddhpur road involving a Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-8T-8937 driven by original opponent no.1, owned by original opponent no.2 and insured with original opponent no.3-Insurance Company. The Tribunal heard all the claim petitions together and disposed them of by way of impugned common judgment and award dated 15.04.2011. This appeal has been preferred by original opponents no.1 & 2 against the award passed in M.A.C.P. No.4887/2002.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the Tribunal has seriously erred in dismissing the claim against the opponent-Insurance Company though the insurance policy was a comprehensive one. It has been submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Amrit Lal Sood & Anr. v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors., 1998 (1) G.L.H. 842, wherein, the issue of comprehensive insurance policy has been exhaustively discussed by the Tribunal. In the alternative, it has been submitted that since the issue as to 'gratuitous passenger' has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court [By decision reported in 2009 (7) S.C.C. 148], this Court may decide the appeal after the final decision is rendered by the Larger Bench.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim against the Insurance Company since the vehicle in question was a 'goods vehicle'. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others, AIR 2003 S.C. 607 (1). It has, therefore, been submitted that this Court may not disturb the impugned award.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that the vehicle in which the deceased and other claimants were travelling was a 'goods vehicle'. It is by now well settled that an Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy an award if the gratuitous passenger is found to be travelling in a 'goods vehicle'. In the case of Asha Rani (supra), similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court. In view of the above, the Tribunal was completely justified in dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company.
6. No other contention has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants.
7. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeal and civil application stand rejected. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top