By way of filing these appeals the appellant – original insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 20th September 2002 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.197 of 1998 and other cognate claim petitions vide which the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. 2 The brief facts of the present case are that on 11.3.1992 at about 8.30 AM deceased Gogabhai Prajapati and other injured claimants were travelling along with their goods and cloth bags in goods vehicle bearing registration No.GJ.13.5382. It is further the case of the claimants that when the said vehicle reached near the site of the accident, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle, it turned turtle causing serious injuries to the passengers travelling in the said vehicle. The injured claimants as well as the heirs of the deceased filed various claim petitions claiming the compensation. At the conclusion of the hearing, appreciating the evidence before him, the learned Member of the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions.
3 On behalf of the appellant, Mr Sunil Parikh learned Advocate inter alia contended that the vehicle in question was a 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.
4. Even otherwise, the no person in any capacity was permitted to travel in a goods vehicle in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223], wherein it was categorically held:
“20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.”
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the present appeals are allowed. The amount deposited by the appellant – insurance company, if lying in the FDRs, shall be refunded to the insurance company. However, if the amount is already withdrawn by the claimants, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and not from the claimants.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd