Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 590 of 2003 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Limited Respondent :- Smt. Asho And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Bed Kant Mishra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Bed Kant Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by appellants, being aggrieved by decree/award dated 24.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Meerut in MACP No.441 of 1997.
3. The brief facts go to show that the deceased was travelling on 30.5.1997 in Truck No.URF-3205 he had taken his vegetables and went for selling the same. The Truck when it reached near Meerut at about 8.30 at night drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed with a tree. Charan Singh was injured and succumbed to the injures. Charan Singh was a vegetable vendor earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The owner filed his reply that the vehicle was insured. The truck dashed with the tree because of bad weather and that his vehicle was insured. The Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle was not insured. There was breach of policy condition.
3. Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the vehicle involved in the accident was a truck. No persons could be carried in the truck for hire or reward .The deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The finding of fact according to Sri S.K. Mehrotra-Advocate that he was with his goods is also bad. It is further submitted that the deceased was not travelling in the cabin which is meant for the person travailing with his goods.
4. While considering the facts the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a person with his own goods and, therefore, there was no breach of policy condition. The insurance company had not raised the ground of gratuitous passengers may that as it may be once it is proved that the deceased was a person travelling with his own goods and had taken the truck on hire, it cannot be held that he was a gratuitous passenger.
4. While going through the record, proceedings and evidence, it is clear that the deceased was with his goods and a person with his own goods cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger. The Insurance company has not proved that he was not with his own goods and therefore it can not now avoids its liability. I do not find that there is any mistake committed by the Tribunal in mulcting the liability on the Insurance Company. No other ground has been raised. The ground as far as compensation are though vehemently submitted to be on the higher side also can not be sustained as the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future income loss will also not permit this Court to interfere with the compensation awarded.
5. The appeal sans merits and is dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Mukesh