1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 15th March 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux), Fast Track Court No.3, Dahod (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1604 of 2004 and other cognate matters whereby, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions preferred u/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”).
2. The short facts of the present case are that the the applicants hired truck No.GJ7X 5149 and were travelling as passengers in the said truck on 18th October 1996 and when the said truck reached near Rabdal village on Godhra – Dahod Highway, the Driver of the truck lost control over the truck due to which it met with an accident. Wife of applicant No.1 in Claim Petition No.1604 of 2004 died in the said accident while other claimants sustained injuries. The claimants, therefore, filed MAC Petitions claiming compensation, which were partly allowed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – insurance company has approached this Court by way of this appeal.
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that the deceased and other injured persons were unauthorised passengers in the goods carriage and therefore the liability cannot be fastened on the appellant-insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savitri Devi & Others, reported in 2012 (4) SCALE 111.
4 Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and order of the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is warranted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the claimants have travelled in the 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
6. The Tribunal has failed to consider that there is a clear breach of the Policy and the vehicle which was registered as a private vehicle was used for carrying the passengers for hire and reward. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The same are hereby set aside and quashed. No liability can be fastened on the appellant insurance company. The appeals of the appellant are allowed to this extent. However, it is clarified that if any amount has already been paid by the Insurance Company, it shall not be permissible for it to recover the same from the claimants. It is also clarified that if the claimants are entitled to recover the balance amount of the compensation awarded to them, they can recover the same from the estate of the owner.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd