All these seven First Appeals were taken up together as common question of law is involved in all these appeals. 2. These appeals arise out of seven different claim- applications under the Motor Vehicles Act, out of which in four cases, the victims died and in other three cases, they were injured. There is no dispute that in all the cases, victims were travelling in a goods' vehicle along with their goods and the insurer of the vehicle in question had the liability only towards third party. There is also no dispute that no other vehicle was involved in the said accident and the accident occurred on October 27, 1991.
3. By the orders impugned herein, the Tribunal below while awarding compensation has held that the insurer of the goods vehicle was also liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally with the owners of the vehicle.
4. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with these appeals.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I am unable to support the finding of the Tribunal below that in such cases, Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable with the owner of the vehicle in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Devireddy Konda Reddi and others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 339. According to the aforesaid decision, the insurer is under no obligation to make payment for the damage suffered by a passenger of such a vehicle in view of the then provision of Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
6. I find no substance in the contention of Mr. Yatin Soni, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, and Mr. Sunil Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants, that the principle contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will confer right upon the claimants to demand payment from the Insurance Company by taking aid of the third party coverage. I have already pointed out that in this case accident occurred at a point of time when the Act of 1988 did not come into force.
7. Since Mr. Nair, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has not pressed any other point as the aforesaid point is sufficient to protect the interest of his client, I did not enter into other questions involved in these appeals.
8. The result is that the order impugned is modified only to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below should be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle and not from the Insurance Company.
9. It appears that as a condition of stay of execution during the pendency of these appeals, the Insurance Company deposited the entire awarded sum before the Tribunal below which was kept in fixed deposit. The Tribunal below is directed to refund the entire amount deposited with the interest accrued thereon to the Insurance Company within two months from today. If by taking aid of interim order passed in these appeals, the claimants have received any amount, the same should also be returned to the Insurance Company with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of receiving the same till return within three months from today.
10. These appeals are thus disposed in terms of this order. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
[Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Acting C.J.] Savariya