1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred these appeal against the judgment and award dated 2nd March, 2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi,(for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 254 of 1992, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 14.8.1992 one Jayantilal Premjibhai Sadariya was travelling in a Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing registration No. GQY 4754 with fertilizers. The driver of the said Rickshaw was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, he lost control over his vehicle and the said vehicle turned turtle. As a result of the said accident Jayantilal Premjibhai Sadariya expired. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 254 of 1992 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after perusing the record decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant- Insurance Company.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant 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 impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed only qua the extent of imposition of liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and it will be open to the claimants to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. The amount lying with the Registry be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] pawan