1 By way of filing this appeal the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 12th August 2005 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.1, Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.830 of 2001 and other cognate claim petitions vide which the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company.
2 The brief facts of the present case are that on 20th August 2001 deceased Heemuben was travelling in the trailer bearing No.GJ 4& 837 of the tractor bearing No.GJ 4H 4463 as a labourer. However, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the tractor, it turned turtle causing serious injuries to the deceased who was travelling in the said vehicle as a labourer. 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 while partly allowing the claim petition exonerated the insurance company from paying the compensation.
3 On behalf of the appellants, Mr Parth Tolia, 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.
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