1 By way of filing this appeal the appellants - original opponents Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the judgment and award dated 18th May 2000 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Veraval in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.322 of 1999 vide which the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants, but exonerated the insurance company from making the payment.
2 The brief facts of the present case are that 24th October 1991 at about 16.30 hours while the deceased Nanubhai Bhanabhai was travelling as labourer in rickshaw No.GT P 5186 for unloading the goods at village Vadaviyala, the said rickshaw turned turtle due to which he received grievous injuries and while he was being shifted to Ahmedabad for treatment, he breathed his last on the way. The claimants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,55,000, which was partly allowed by the Tribunal.
3. In paragraph 12 of the judgment the Tribunal has observed that at the time of accident, original opponent No.2 - Driver was not holding a legal and valid licence for driving goods carrier whereas the original opponent No.2 was holding licence to drive an auto-rickshaw. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi & Anr. v. Ranguba Wd/o Rajpuji Pabaji Vihol & Ors, reported in 1993 (1) GLR 865 has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and held original opponents Nos.1 and 2 to satisfy the award.
4 On behalf of the appellants, Ms Sejal Mandavia, learned Advocate has referred to the RC Book and submitted that the sitting capacity of the rickshaw was 1+1 and the Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed that no interference is called ofr.
6. Having considered the averments made by the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company as the Driver of the auto-rickshaw was not holding a valid licence.
7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of any merits and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top