1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident and involve common questions on law and facts. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 20.04.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar in M.A.C.P. No.185/1981, 51/1982 to 54/1982, 44/1983, 46/1983, 124/1983, 106/1984 and 107/1984 whereby, the claim petitions were partly allowed.
2. The facts in brief are that on 30.11.1981 while the injured claimants and the deceased were travelling in a Truck bearing registration No. GTP 4687 driven by original opponent no.1 owned by original opponent no.3 and insured with original opponent no.5-Insurance Company, it collied with an Oil Tanker bearing registration No. GRT 4103 owned by original opponent no.6. In the said accident, several persons were injured and few died. The injured and the heirs of deceased filed claim petitions before the Tribunal, which came to be disposed of by common impugned judgment and award. Against the said award, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals.
3. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle in which the injured and deceased were travelling was a 'goods vehicle' and therefore, the Insurance Company could not be saddled with any liability in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 75.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents were not in a position to dispute the aforesaid proposition of law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question in which the deceased and injured persons were travelling was a 'goods vehicle'. Under the circumstances, the appellant- Insurance Company could not be held liable in view of the principle laid down in Rattani's case (supra). Hence, the appeals preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company deserves to be allowed qua the extent of their liability.
6. While entertaining the Civil Applications filed by the appellant in the above appeals, this Court on 27.04.1989 had passed the following order;
“It is an undisputed position that instead of 30%, the applicant is liable to pay 20% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant has deposited 20% of the total amount awarded and not 30% as directed by this Court as per order dated 26.12.1988. The order dated 26.12.1988 stands modified to the effect that instead of 30% of the total awarded amount the figure 20% shall be read. The amount deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company shall be disbursed and invested on pro-rata basis as per the directions in the award. Rule made absolute accordingly.”
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are quashed and set aside only qua the extent of imposition of liability upon 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 claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants but, the appellant-Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. If the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and the claimants shall be at liberty to recover the balance 80% amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*