[1] By way of this appeal, the appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.III), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.980 of 1992 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation in sum of Rs.58,148/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till till realization.
[2] In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 01.05.1992. In the said accident, the applicant was travelling in Matador No.GJ-1-U-6386 and due to rash and negligent driving Metador turned turtle and claimant has sustained injuries, had the claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (A-III), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said claim petitions were allowed in part, by common judgment and award dated 31.03.2005, whereby, the claimants were awarded compensation in respective claim petitions.
[3] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the matador in question is goods vehicle and the claimant was sitting in the capacity as a gratuitous passenger or as a owner of goods and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 2 SCC1, (2003) 2 SCC 223 and (2003) 2 SCC 339, it is very clear that the passenger risk is not covered in such type of vehicle. It is submitted that no additional premium is paid by the insured to cover the risk of such type of passenger and even otherwise, the accident took place on 1.5.1992, so the risk of such passenger is not covered and it amount to breach of policy condition and permit also. It is submitted that when the accident has taken place risk of persons other than employee of insured were not statutorily covered under the policy and so, there is no liability of insurance company to cover the risk of persons traveling in goods vehicle. It is admitted position that claimants were traveling in goods vehicle at the time of accident and as stated above and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani and others, reported in 2003 (1) ACJ 1, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount to claimants as the policy did not cover the risk of such person. He, therefore, urged that the appeals are required to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
[4] It is submitted on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal seriously erred in holding the Insurance Company liable since the claimants were travelling as a gratuitous passengers in the matador, which is a vehicle classified as 'goods vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act.
[5] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the evidence on record and considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the respondent No.1 is was working as cleaner. The Tribunal has considered future loss of Rs.187/- yearly future economic loss would be Rs.2,244/-. The learned Tribunal has also observed that at the time of accident, he was 25 years of age and considered multiplier of 17. It appears that the Tribunal has not committed an error in awarding total compensation of Rs.58,148/-.
[6] In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the compensation. I find that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
[7] Hence, I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and and hence I find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay