1. These appeals arise out of common impugned judgment and award dated 09/02/2004 rendered by learned M.A.C.T.(Main), Valsad in MACP No.887/2002 and other allied claim petitions, whereby, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded the amount of compensation to the claimants and directed the appellant herein so also respondent nos.2 and 3 herein [original opponent nos.1, 2 & 3] to pay the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the realisation with proportionate costs thereon.
2. Mr. Gade learned advocate for the appellant- original opponent no.3 Insurance Company, at the outset, submitted that it has come on record that as many as 22 to 25 persons were travelling in the goods vehicle viz. Truck No.GTC-4247 allegedly driven by opponent no.1, which belonged to opponent no.2 and which was insured with the appellant- original opponent no.3. It is submitted that in the written statement, this contention was raised that the injured claimants as well as the deceased were gratuitous passengers and they were travelling in the goods vehicle. Mr. Gade learned advocate for the appellant further contended that considering the evidence on record, it can safely be said that, in the goods vehicle, 22 to 25 unauthorised passengers were travelling and therefore, opponent no.1 lost control over the steering and the truck went in a ditch. It is, therefore, submitted that even the Tribunal erred in replying Issue No.1 regarding the negligence. Mr. Gade learned advocate for the appellant, therefore, submitted that since the concerned respondents- claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle as unauthorised passengers, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the amount of compensation. It is, therefore, submitted that all these appeals may be allowed and the appellant- Insurance Company may be exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation to the respondents-claimants.
3. Mr. Kunal Vyas learned advocate for Mr. A.V. Thakkar learned advocate for the respondent no.1- original claimant in First Appeal No.2258/2004 and First Appeal No.2259/2004 vehemently opposed these appeals and submitted that the Tribunal, appreciating oral evidence on record so also considering the FIR and panchnama of the scene of accident, rightly replied Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants that the accident occurred because of sole rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver- original opponent no.1. Mr. Vyas learned advocate asserted that during the course of oral evidence adduced by the claimants, it has come on record that in the truck, at the time of accident, 6 to 7 persons were travelling in capacity as labourers of the truck itself. Mr. Vyas learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the tribunal elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter in Para-26 in the impugned judgment and award and rightly came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the award. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the record and proceedings in light of the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides.
5. The first and foremost contention appears to have been raised by the appellant- Insurance Company, is that at the time of accident, about 22 to 25 unauthorised passengers were travelling in the goods carriage vehicle and therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal and it is submitted that as a matter of fact, the Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant-Insurance Company. In this respect, considering the averments made by the concerned claimants in their claim petitions, atleast, seven in numbers, out of which seven first appeals are filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, that at the time of accident, injured claimants as well as deceased were travelling in capacity as labourers in the truck. It further transpires that the concerned claimants have filed their affidavits before the Claim Tribunal and on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company, they were cross-examined. The Tribunal at length evaluated and appreciated the oral evidence, adduced by the claimants and observed that as per the oral evidence, atleast 22 to 25 persons were travelling in the truck, but out of them, 6 to 7 persons were labourers. It further transpires that seven claimants qua whom, seven appeals came to be filed, stated that they were labourers and as stated above, appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that out of the total numbers of persons travelling in the truck, 6 to 7 persons were labourers. It further transpires that neither the driver nor the owner of the truck stepped into witness-box to controvert the say of the claimants, made by them in their affidavits.
6. In above view of the matter, in Para-26 of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal took into consideration this aspect of the matter at length. The Tribunal, appreciating evidence on record came to the conclusion that despite the fact that 22 to 25 persons were travelling in the truck, but out of them, as emerged from the evidence on record, 6 to 7 persons were labourers in the truck itself. There does not appear any reason to interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in Para-26 in the impugned judgment and award, while coming to the conclusion that in the truck 6 to 7 labourers were also travelling and the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error while fastening the liability of the appellant- Insurance Company to satisfy the award.
7. The next contention which came to be raised on behalf of appellant at the time of final argument is that since 22 to 25 persons were travelling in the truck and therefore, opponent no.1- driver lost control over the steering and the accident occurred. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of sole rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, while dealing with Issue No.1 regarding the negligence, the Tribunal took into consideration the affidavits, filed by the claimants in support of their respective claim petitions so also the cross-examination made on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company and further the Tribunal took into consideration the FIR Exh.65 and panchnama Exh.67 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of sole rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. This Court does not find any error having been committed by the tribunal while replying the Issue No.1 regarding the negligence in favour of the claimants. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of sole rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver- opponent no.1.
8. At the time of arguments, on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company, no more contention was raised. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that all these appeals lack merits and deserve dismissal.
9. For the foregoing reasons, all these appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
10. At the time of presentation of these appeals, any amount deposited by the appellant with this Court, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J) abv/g