1 By way of filing this appeal the appellant – insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 29th March 2005 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.3, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1857 of 1999 vide which the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company has partly allowed the claim petition.
2 The brief facts of the present case are that on 22nd June 1998 deceased Shyamjibhai Hirabhai Vaghela had gone to attend the post-death ceremony of one of his relatives at village Milrampura and for the said purpose he was travelling in the trailer bearing No.GJ 7U 6433 of the tractor bearing No.GJ 7A 9340 along with his other relatives. It is the case of the claimants that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the tractor, it fell into a ditch when they reached near Mile Stone No.48 and due to which Shyamjibhai Hirabhai Vaghela fell down on the road and received serious injuries and while he was being taken to the hospital, on the way he lost his life. The claimants of the deceased filed various claim petition claiming the compensation. At the conclusion of the hearing, appreciating the evidence before him, the learned Member of the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition.
3 Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the vehicle in question was a 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. Mr Dilip Rana, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the respondents are not cooperating with him and he sent notice intimating the respondents that he is retiring from the matter and informed them to engage another advocate. Though the said notice was served upon the respondents, they have neither remained present nor engaged any other counsel.
4. Even otherwise, the no person in any capacity was permitted to travel in a goods vehicle in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223], wherein it was categorically held:
“20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.”
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd