1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.03.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No.1131/1992 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and respondents no.1 & 2, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.5.10 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The aforesaid claim petition came to be filed in connection with the vehicular accident that occurred on 07.06.1992 in the dawn hours involving a Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-17T-08 near Kuvaradev Octroi Post. In the said accident, Shashivadanbhai Rajnikant Trivedi sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was an Act Policy but, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the said fact and seriously erred in holding the appellant liable to satisfy the claim. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from the liability of satisfying the claim. In support of the above submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Meenaben B. Dhangar and others, 2008 (3) G.L.H. 173 and two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi and others, AIR 2009 SC 626 and Bhagyalakshmi and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2009) 7 S.C.C. 148.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-claimant supported the impugned award and submitted that the Insurance Policy in question was a comprehensive policy and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim.
5. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State was not in a position to controvert the law laid down by this Court in Meenaben Dhangar's case (supra) wherein, it has been held that State Government, being the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver, is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the Insurance Policy of the vehicle at Exhibit-32 that it is an Act Policy. When the insurance policy of the vehicle in question is an Act Policy, the Tribunal could not have held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding the appellant liable to satisfy the claim.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the direction of the Tribunal qua holding the appellant liable to satisfy the claim of compensation is quashed and set aside. The appellant is exonerated from the liability of satisfying the claim. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The amount deposited with the Tribunal shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company but, if the same is withdrawn, it shall be open to the appellant to recover the same from respondent-State Government. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*