1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the common judgment and award dated 08.07.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main) Jamnagar,(for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 291 of 1995, whereby, the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 10.11.1994, some persons were travelling in a matador bearing registration No. GRP-6901 and that vehicle got accident with the ambassador car No.GJJ-7010. As a result of the said accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and due to which the deceased was expired. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. 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. On behalf of the appellant, learned Advocate 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. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Mushtari Begum (Smt) and Others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 667 and Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and Others, reported in 2011, ACJ 926, and submitted that the Insurance Company has to pay compensation and may recover from the owner of the vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the compensation and in holding all the original opponents severally and jointly liable for the accident. Therefore, the appeal is deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223], has held that no person in any capacity was permitted to travel in a goods vehicle, The relevant portion of the said decision are reproduced as under:-
“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 appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 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 claimants, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and not from the claimants.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] ..mitesh..