This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31st December 2002 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Veraval in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.786 of 1999 vide which he granted compensation of Rs.42,660 to 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 while the injured claimants were travelling in Carrier Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ.10.T.6940 on 27th September 1993 at about 8.45 AM and when the said rickshaw reached near Kindarvana Patiya, due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2 herein the rickshaw turned turtle causing injuries to the original claimants. In order to make the loss good, the first respondent – original claimant filed the claim petition for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal at Ahmedabad and claimed Rs.1,00,000/-. At the conclusion of the hearing, appreciating the evidence before him, the learned Member of the Tribunal awarded Rs.42,660 to the claimants.
3 On behalf of the appellant, Mr Sunil Parikh learned Advocate pressed the appeal upon one ground. According to him, 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 appeal is 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 claimant, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and not from the claimant.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd