1 By way of filing this appeal the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 4th October 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.196 of 2007 vide which the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company.
2 The brief facts of the present case are that on 8th April 2007 the brother of the owner of Rickshaw bearing No.GJ.7.UU 615 Manubhai Saburbhai Bhoi and deceased went to sell wheat at Mahudha. When said rickshaw reached near Navchetan Patiya in the evening at 6.00 PM it turned turtle resulting into causing serious injuries to the deceased. He was removed to Hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being the heirs of the deceased filed claim petition claiming the compensation. At the conclusion of the hearing, appreciating the evidence before him, the learned Member of the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition but exonerated the insurance company from paying the compensation.
3 On behalf of the appellants, Mr Shukla, learned Advocate inter alia contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased was travelling as unauthorised passenger in the vehicle in question. He further contended that the sitting capacity of the rickshaw was 1+1. He has also contended that the income assessed at Rs.2400 is on lower side.
4 Learned counsel for the insurance company 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.
5. 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.”
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd