1. The insurer of autorickshaw GJ-10-U-7682, challenges the judgment and award rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar, in Claim Case No. 559/2000, on 17.09.2004. The said claim was preferred by respondent No.1. According to her, she was travelling in the said autorickshaw along with her goods on 19.10.1999, when the front axle of the autorickshaw brokeaway, as a result of which driver of the rickshaw lost control and the rickshaw got over- turned. An FIR was lodged in connection with the said incident with Lalpur Police Station, being I-C.R. No.113 of 1999. As a result thereof, the claimant, respondent No.1, herein, had sustained injuries and had to undergo treatment including surgery, and therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
The driver-cum-owner of the rickshaw did not contest the claim before the tribunal and the insurance company contested the claim by denying the allegations made in the claim petition and taking a specific plea that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and the claimant was an unauthorized passenger, and therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.69,500/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization of the awarded amount and that the opponents were liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award present appeal is preferred by the insurer.
3. The appeal is mainly founded on the ground that the claimant was a passenger in a goods vehicle; she was, therefore, an unauthorized passenger; and therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation.
4. Heard learned Advocate, Mr. Sood, for the appellant and Mr. Rach, for respondent No.1, original claimant.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Sood submitted that undisputedly, the vehicle in question is a goods rickshaw registered as a goods vehicle and only one person is permitted to travel in it, as per the Motor Vehicles Rules. He also submitted that the policy was issued for goods vehicle. He, further, submitted that it has come in evidence that besides the claimant, there were other persons travelling in the said autorickshaw and as a result thereof, the axle of the front wheel brokeaway. He submitted that the insurance company, therefore, cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation.
6. Cross-examination of the original claimant reveals that in the FIR she had not stated that she was not travelling with the goods, which would mean that she was travelling with the goods. This Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (A.L.DAVE,J.)