1. The award impugned in the captioned appeal was already under challenge in another appeal being First Appeal No.1897/2004. The said First Appeal and another appeal being First Appeal No.1898/2004 came to be disposed of by this Court by common judgment dated 24.02.2012, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference;
"1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.05.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in M.A.C.P. No.595/1995 and in M.A.C.P. No. 32 of 1996 whereby, the claim petitions were allowed and respondents no.1 to 5 herein, original claimants, were awarded compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- and Rs.38,300/- respectively, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The above claim petitions came to be filed in respect of the vehicular accident that took place on 19.11.1995 at around 1230 hrs. in which Karubhai Hirabhai Sonagra expired while he was travelling along with others in a Rickshaw (chhakda) bearing registration No. GJ-10-U-3860 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling as unauthorised passenger in a 'goods vehicle' and therefore, no liability of making payment of compensation could be saddled upon the Insurance Company. In support of the above submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 713.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It appears from the record that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident was a 'goods vehicle'. Under the provisions of the M.V. Act. the Insurance Company of a 'goods vehicle' cannot be fastened with the liability of making payment of compensation, if any injury is caused or death takes place while travelling in such vehicle. Considering the facts of the case and the principle rendered in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to make payment of compensation.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside only qua the extent of imposition of liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants but, the appellant-Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. If the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and the claimants shall be at liberty to recover the balance amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
2. In view of the above, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping these matters pending. Hence, the captioned appeal will also be governed by the judgment dated 24.02.2012 referred to herein above.
3. Consequently, the Misc. Civil Application, Civil Application and the First Appeal stand disposed.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top