1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the award dated 01.08.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) at Junagadh in MACT Case No. 557, 635, 558, 560, 1116 of 1999 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation alongwith interest and costs payable by the original opponents no. 1 & 2 to the original claimant. The Tribunal has exonerated the respondent no. 3-original opponent no. 3.
2. The original claimants had filed claim petition seeking compensation in respect of the vehicular accident which occurred on 02.03.1998 when the deceased/injured were travelling in a Matador bearing No. GJ-1-X-7561 along with their goods. It is the case of the appellants that while the vehicle reached Dhari Gundali village, the driver drove the matador in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle turned turtle. The appellants therefore filed claim petition under the said circumstance. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the Insurance Company and ought not to have dismissed the claim of the appellant against the insurance company and that the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver, owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased/injured were travelling in the goods with their goods.
4. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has passed the award in accordance with law after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore no interference is called for in the matter. He has relied upon a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Savitri Devi And Others etc reported in 2012(4) SCALE 111 and submitted that considering that the vehicle was being used under clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company cannot be held liable.
5. This court has heard the parties and perused the papers on record. The only contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellants is that the insurance company is exonerated. As regards this the Tribunal has observed that the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and that the passengers cannot travel in the said vehicle. The Tribunal considered the spot panchnama Ex. 36 and observed that no household items were found from the scene of accident as stated by the complainant. Some wheat was found scattered on the spot but the owner of the said wheat was not specifically stated. The Tribunal on that basis had exonerated the insurance company from being liable. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal.
5.1 In the case of National Insurance Company (Supra), the Apex Court has held that when there is a specific finding that the vehicle in question is a “Goods Carrying Vehicle”, the insurance company cannot be held liable when the vehicle was being used for for carrying passengers. The insurance policy was produced before the Tribunal. The Matador was a good vehicle and therefore, breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy is committed. Moreover, it is also borne out that the appellants were traveling in the said goods carrying vehicle as illegal passengers in absence of any evidence regarding owner of the goods as claimed by the appellants and therefore the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from any claim. Appeals are devoid of any merits and deserve to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//