By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 13.04.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.1 at Viramgam in MACP No. 1321 of 1999 and MACP No. 1322 of 1999 whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,05,000/- to the claimants of MACP No. 1321/1999 and Rs. 1,65,500/- to the claimants of MACP No. 1322/1999.
Brief facts of the case are that:
2.1 On 12.04.1999, at about 11.00 p.m. Deceased Bharatbhai Jaymalbhai Solanki of MACP No. 1321/1999 and injured Dadubhai Mavubhai Solanki of MACP No. 1322/1999 with other persons of their village Mahadevpura were going to Unza market for selling cumin packed in the gunny bags. The said claimant was carrying said gunny bags in Matador No. GJ 1 x 7179. At about 3.00 A.M., when the said vehicle was passing through Khyati Hotel, one truck came from the opposite direction with full light. The said light was reflected in the eyes of the matador driver and therefore just to avoid accident, the claimant took the vehicle down from the road and then again while he was taking his vehicle on the road, he lost his control over the stearing. Hence, the said matador turned turtled and the persons travelling therein sustained grievous injuries and Bharatbhai Jaymalbhai Solanki died during the treatment.
2.2 Gauriben wd/o deceased Bharatbhai Jaymalbhai Solanki and two minor children have filed MACP No. 1321 of 1999 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.1 at Viramgam for getting compensation of Rs. 14,10,000/-. The tribunal vide judgement and award dated 13.04.1999 has awarded Rs. 05,05,000/- from the opponent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle.
2.3 Dabubhai Mavubhai Solanki, who sustained injuries in the said accident has filed MACP No. 1322 of 1999 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.1 at Viramgam for getting compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The tribunal vide judgement and award dated 13.04.1999 has directed the claimant to recover Rs. 1,65,000/- from the opponent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the said judgement and award, owner of the vehicle-present appellant, original opponent no. 2 has preferred these appeals.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Claims Tribunal is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the tribunal has grossly erred in not appreciating the extent of negligence of the vehicle. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have held the insurance company liable for compensation for the reason being the deceased was not sitting in vehicle as passenger but the deceased was the owner of the goods loaded in the vehicle, which was actually being taken to the market yard to sell.
Heard learned advocates for the parties.
I am in complete agreement with view of the tribunal that the insurance policy shows that the opponent No.2 was registered owner of the said vehicle at the time of incident. The policy itself shows that the said vehicle was goods carriage vehicle and was insured in the name of opponent No.2 and the policy was effective on the date of incident too. It is observed that injured or deceased were not respective owners of the goods which were kept in the gunny bags and the goods were of cumin to then which were being carried by the said vehicle and that the risk of such illegal passengers travelling in the goods carriage vehicle is not at all covered under the said policy and therefore the opponent No. 3 insurer is exonerated and the opponent No.2 being the owner of the said vehicle is solely hold responsible to pay awarded amount of compensation to the claimants.
It is not in dispute that the claimants have travelled in the goods vehicle and use of the goods vehicle for carrying passengers is prohibited and therefore the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The said view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. reported in 2012 (4) SCALE
111. In that view of the matter first appeals are dismissed.
In view of dismissal of first appeals, civil applications will not survive. Hence, the civil applications stand disposed of.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] JYOTI Top