1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 19.03.1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Rajkot, in M.A.C.P. No. 659 of 1993, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.65,080/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 24.06.1993 while one Vinodbhai Virjibhai Patel, appellant herein, and Rajeshbhai Nathabhai Lakhtari, were going on scooter bearing registration No. GJR 6700. The said scooter was driven by Rajeshbhai Nathabhai Lakhtari and the present appellant as pillion rider, at that time all of a sudden a cyclist passed through the road, therefore, the driver of the said scooter lost control over the scooter. Therefore, accident took place and due to said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries Therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.659 of 1993 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-
Insurance Company.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal mainly contending that the policy in the instance case was an Act Policy, therefore, it could not be saddled with any liability for injury sustained by a pillion rider travelling as a gratuitous passenger, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manger, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and Ors, AIR 2009 SC 626.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that in the instant case the policy was an Act policy and the appellant was pillion rider in the said vehicle. Under the circumstances, the appellant-Insurance Company could not be held liable in view of the principle laid down in General Manger, United Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra). Hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed only qua the extent of imposition of liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimant, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimant and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimant, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and it will be open to the claimant to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. The amount lying with the Registry be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] pawan