(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 30.6.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux) Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.775/1992.
2. The appellant is the insurance company which had insured a jeep bearing registration no. GAM/8254 belonging to the police department of the State Government. Such vehicle being driven by the driver of the department met with the accident on 26.2.1992. One Chhatrasinh A. Thakore, Police SubInspector, who was one of the occupants of the jeep died. His dependants which included his widow, minor children and other family members, therefore, filed abovementioned claim petition and sought compensation of Rs.11,99,000/ from the opponents i.e. the driver, the State Government as the owner of the vehicle and the present appellant insurance company which had insured the vehicle in question.
3. The Claims Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the sole negligence of driver of the jeep. With respect to the compensation payable to the claimants, tribunal adopted Rs.3500/ per month for calculating dependency benefits. Rs.500/ was set apart for the maintenance of deceased himself, thereby leaving Rs.3000/ per month for the claimants. Looking to the age of the deceased being 48 years, tribunal adopted multiplier of 12 and adopted datum figure of Rs.36,000/(Rs.3000x12) and worked out sum of Rs.4,32,000/(Rs.3000x12x12) towards dependency benefit. Tribunal further added conventional amounts such as loss of consortium, loss of expectation of life and funeral charges and awarded total sum of Rs.4,69,000/ to the claimants payable by the opponents jointly and severally.
4. This appeal is presented by the insurance company on the sole ground that deceased being a passenger employed by the Government, his risk was not covered in the insurance policy. It is also the case of the insurance company that in any case policy was only statutory policy and that therefore, the risk of passenger in any case would not be covered.
5. We may record that in this appeal the insurance company has not seriously admitted or disputed either the question of negligence of the driver of the vehicle in causing the accident or the computation of compensation carried out by the Claims Tribunal.
6. In view of above position, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the sole question of liability of the insurance company to satisfy the award. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the deceased being an employee of the State, his risk was not covered under the policy and further that since no extra premium was paid, risk of any other passenger would not be covered.
7. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Rahul Dave opposed the appeal contending that judgement of the tribunal calls for no interference.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the materials on record, we do agree that if the terms of the insurance policy does not include the risk of the employee travelling in the vehicle of the Government, insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the award. We had also taken such a view in one of our recent judgements dated 7.2.2012 passed in First Appeal No.2214/1999.
9. In the present case, however, facts are somewhat different. Admittedly, the entire insurance policy was never produced before the Claims Tribunal. The cover note and accompanying statement of group insurance regarding vehicles which were covered under such group coverage, were only produced. Therefore, it is not possible for us to discern exact terms of such policy. Both the elements of contention of the counsel for the appellant therefore, cannot be examined for want of sufficient material on record.
10. Under the circumstances, we are no inclined to interfere with the order of the Claims Tribunal making it however, clear that contention of the insurance company are declined only on the premise that terms and conditions have not been presented for our consideration.
11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. In view of order passed in the main matter, Civil Application does not survive. Same is dismissed.
12. Counsel for the appellant insurance company stated that while presenting the appeal insurance company had deposited sum of Rs.25,000/ before the Registry of this Court. Registry should verify whether such amount has already been transmitted to the trial Court or not. If not done, same be done within two weeks hereof.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L. Soni,J.) (raghu)