1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.3.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Ahmedabad, in M.A.C.P. Nos.904 of 1998, 1521 of 1998 and 1601 of 1998, whereby the tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petitions and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.904 of 1998, Rs.1,60,200/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.1521 of 1998 and Rs.98,400/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.1601 of 1998 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the applications till realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 15.08.1998, Rajubhai alongwith other two persons were travelling in a Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-7-V-7969. When they reached near Ahuja Ice Factory, one tractor bearing registration No. GJ-9B-9186 came from opposite direction and dashed the said Rickshaw. As a result of the said accident, At that time the present appellant was serving as a driver in a Tempo bearing registration No. GTT- 3673. On the date of accident, Rajubhai expired and other two persons sustained grievous injuries, therefore, the legal heirs of deceased Rajubhai and injured persons filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after perusing the record decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeals are filed by the appellant- Insurance Company.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable to make payment of compensation. He further contended that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the license of Light Motor Vehicles not Light goods vehicle. Therefore, he prayed to allow these appeals.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeals and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1418.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. I halve also perused the decision of Apex Court, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, wherein in paragraphs 8, 16 and 27, the Apex Court has held as under:-
8. Ms. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of the light motor vehicle as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act for short), a light goods carried would come within the purview thereof.
A light goods carriage, having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the light motor vehicle clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle.
Strong reliance has been place in this behalf by the learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurancve Company Ltd., [ 1999(6) SCC 620].
16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evidence that transport vehicle has now been substituted for medium goods vehicle, and heavy goods vehicle.The light motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time, to cover both light passenger carried vehicle, and light goods carried vehicle.
17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court, the present appeals deserves to be dismissed, therefore, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top