1. The appellant herein- original opponent no. 3 – Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and award dated 02.05.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 526 & 527 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,40,000/- & Rs. 50,600/- respectively as compensation to the original claimants.
2. The original claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured claimant had filed claim petitions seeking compensation for the death of the husband of original claimant no. 1 and father of the original claimants no. 2 to 4 of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 526 of 1998 and the injuries caused to the claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 527 of 1998 in an accident which occurred on 22.06.1998 while the claimant no. 1 and her husband were travelling in a jeep bearing registration no. GJ 8 A 3349. It is the say of the claimants that the original respondent no. 1 was driving the said jeep in such a rash and negligent manner that the jeep turned turtle thereby killing the husband of claimant no. 1 and injuring herself. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not exonerating the appellant – Insurance Company. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased had hired the vehicle in question for going to Palitana and thus there is violation of the limitation as to use as contained in the policy of insurance. He submitted that the policy did not cover the use of vehicle for hire or reward.
5. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is borne out that the insurance company failed to prove that the deceased and injured were travelling in the jeep for hire or reward. It not borne out from the records that the deceased and claimant no. 1 were travelling as paid passengers in the jeep and only on the footing that the deceased and injured were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the jeep the Tribunal held the insurance company liable for the payment of compensation. From the statement made by the injured and her daughter on oath it can be understood that the jeep was not hired for hire or reward and that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers because of good relations with the owner of the jeep. Therefore, in absence of any evidence adduced by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal regarding travel of the deceased and injured for hire or reward, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong footing and erroneously granted compensation. Hence there is no merit in these appeals and are accordingly dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//