1. By way of these appeals, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the common judgment and award dated 07.12.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxiliary), Gondal, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 376 of 1993, No.329 of 1993 and No.323 of 1993, whereby the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.57,900/-, Rs.5,43,000/- and Rs.35,500/- respectively with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization and proportionate costs.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the deceased and the original applicants were travelling in the metador carrier bearing registration No.GJ-3-T-908 with their goods, which was driven by the original opponent No.1 rashly and negligently and in full speed. As a result thereof, the metador turned turtled and persons travelling in this metador sustained injuries and deceased Naran Bhaya Bharwad died during his treatment. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased and claimants filed afore said three claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gondal.
2.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeals are preferred by the present appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others reported in 2003 ACG 1. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal against the appellant is illegal, unjust and requires interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgment and award of the tribunal. Learned advocate for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the original claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle, therefore, I am of the opinion that the contention of learned advocate for the appellant is required to be accepted, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others reported in 2003 ACG 1. The Insurance Company is not liable for compensation.
5. In that view of the matter, the appeals are required to be allowed, therefore, the same are allowed. If the amount in each petition is lying in the tribunal, the same shall be returned to the Insurance Company and in case the amount is withdrawn by the claimants, the Insurance Company cannot recover the same from the claimants. However, it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.]