Uma Bharatkumar Kapadia & 1 ­ Defendants

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.10.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No.588/1986 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and respondents no.1 & 2, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,33,000/­ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization.

2. The aforesaid claim petition came to be filed in connection with the vehicular accident that occurred on 12.05.1985, involving a Matador Tempo bearing registration No. GRJ­5335 near Village Fartikui. In the said accident, respondnet no. 1 original claimant sustained severe injuries.

3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant­Insurance Company is that in spite of the fact that that the injured claimant was a passenger for hire travelling in a private vehicle, the Tribunal erred in holding the appellant liable to satisfy the claim. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from the liability of satisfying the claim. In support of the above submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premjibhai Manjibhai Vasava & Ors and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagyalakshmi and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2009) 7 S.C.C. 148.

4. Learned counsel for respondent­claimant supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant­Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling was a private vehicle and not a goods vehicle. When the insurance policy of the vehicle in question is an Act Policy, the Tribunal could not have held the appellant­Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding the appellant liable to satisfy the claim.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the direction of the Tribunal qua holding the appellant liable to satisfy the claim of compensation is quashed and set aside. The appellant is exonerated from the liability of satisfying the claim. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The amount deposited with the Tribunal shall be refunded to the appellant­Insurance Company along with interest but, if the same is withdrawn, it shall be open to the appellant to recover the same from respondent­State Government. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/