1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, dated 16.08.2001, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.224 of 1994, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.65,000/- along with 9 per cent interest per annum.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that, on 25.05.1993, while the original claimant-respondent No.1, herein, along with other labourers was travelling in a tractor driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the present appellant, said tractor suddenly overturned and as a result thereof, respondent No.1 received severe bodily injuries. She, therefore, filed the above- mentioned claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. However, he mainly contended that, since, respondent No.1 was travelling in tractor, which is a goods vehicle, the tribunal ought to have held that the appellant is not liable to satisfy the claim. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ASHA RANI & ORS.”, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that the owner of the goods or his authorized representative travelling in a goods vehicle, expired or suffered any injury in an accident, insurer will not be liable to indemnify the claim of compensation.
4. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has opposed the present appeal by filing X-objections and the learned Advocate for her has prayed to dismiss the same as being without merit. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.1, at the time of accident, was travelling in a tractor, which is a goods vehicle. In other words, said vehicle is not meant to carry passengers. Under Section-95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” is defined as a vehicle not meant for carrying passengers. Otherwise also, it is a matter of common knowledge that Tractor is not meant for carrying passengers and whosoever takes a ride on it shall be doing so at his own risk and if the Tractor is insured with the Insurance Company, then no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company for the death or injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the tractor being a goods vehicle, it is not liable to satisfy the claim, requires to be accepted.
6. Insofar as the cross-objections filed by respondent No.1 are concerned, I find that while awarding compensation, the tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence in detail, more particularly, the evidence in the form of FIR(Exhibit-34), Panchnama(Exhibit-35) etc., which support the case put forward by respondent No.1. At the time of accident, respondent No.1 was aged about 30 years, and hence, the contention raised by the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in “SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.”, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied, requires to be accepted. Thus, taking the multiplier of 17, the amount towards loss of future income would come to Rs.(186 X 12 X 17)=37,944/-. Since, the tribunal has already awarded Rs.33,480/- under the said head, respondent No.1 shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(37,944 – 33480)=Rs.4464/- rounding it off to Rs.4500/-.
7. As regards the amounts awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same being just and proper do not require interference.
8. The tribunal has awarded the original amount of award along with 9 per cent interest, however, looking to the prevalent rate of interest, the ends of justice would be met if the additional amount is awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum.
9. Under the circumstances, both the appeal as well as cross objections are ALLOWED. The appellant insurance company is EXONERATED from the liability to pay compensation. The amount deposited by the appellant insurance company be REFUNDED to it along with interest, costs, if any. If the amount deposited by the appellant is already WITHDRAWN by respondent No.1, original claimant, then, it shall NOT be RECOVERED from respondent No.1, but, it shall be open to the appellant, insurance company, to RECOVER the same from the OWNER of the vehicle. Respondent No.1, the original claimant, shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.4500/- towards compensation along with 7.5 per cent interest per annum from the date of application, till its realization. The judgment and award impugned in the present appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/