1. By way of these appeals, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the common judgment and award dated 18.07.1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Surat, in total 11 Motor Accident Claims Petitions, whereby the tribunal has awarded the different amount of compensation in each claims petition with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till realization and proportionate costs.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the deceased and injured were travelling on a truck No.GJ-17-T-3327 with their luggage and goods. At that time, the original opponent No.1 was driving the truck in excessive speed and he lost the control over the steering. As a result thereof, the truck was dashed with a tree and therefore, the deceased died and other applicants had sustained injures. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased and claimants have filed aforesaid claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat.
2.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeals are preferred by the present appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others reported in 2003 ACG 1. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal against the appellant is illegal, unjust and requires interference by this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Learned advocate for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the original claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle, therefore, I am of the opinion that the contention of learned advocate for the appellant is required to be accepted, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asha Rani's case (Supra). The Insurance Company is not liable for compensation.
6. In that view of the matter, the appeals are required to be allowed, therefore, the same are allowed. If the amount is lying in the tribunal, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and in case the amount is withdrawn by the claimants, the Insurance Company shall not recover the same from the claimants. However, it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.]