1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 20.08.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Valsad, in M.A.C.P. No. 963 of 2002(Old No.417 of 1996), whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 26.03.1996 one Mahendrakumar Jamsubhai Ganvit-respondent No.1 herein, was going to Maroli from Sanjan by sitting on the front portion of a Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-15x-60 owned by the original opponent No.1. The driver of the said truck was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, he lost control over his vehicle and the said Truck turned turtle. As a result of which respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries and therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.963 of 2002(Old No.417 of 1996) before the tribunal for compensation.
2.1. The tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company from making payment of compensation. The Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from making payment of compensation, as the vehicle in which the original claimant was travelling was a 'goods vehicle' and therefore, it could not be saddled with any liability in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC
75.
4. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the materials on record. Though served none appears for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question in which the original claimant was travelling was a 'goods vehicle'. Under the circumstances, the appellant-Insurance Company could not be held liable in view of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra). Hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed only qua the extent of imposition of liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimant, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimant and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimant, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company along with interest @ 3% per annum. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] pawan Top