Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD - Appellant(s) Versus BENIBEN WD/O.SOMABHAI VIRABHAI & 6 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR SUNIL PARIKH for MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, MR HARNISH V DARJI for Defendant(s) : 1,3 - 5. UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Defendant(s) : 2, SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Defendant(s) : 6, MR JITENDRA M PATEL for Defendant(s) : 7, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/05/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 31.03.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No.446/1984, 447/1984, 538/1984, 564/1984 and 579/1984 whereby, the claim petitions were partly allowed.
2. On 22.04.1984 at about 0700 hrs. due to turtling of a Truck bearing registration no. GTP 6631 near Village Dumela, whereby some persons were injured and some succumbed to the injuries. The heirs of the deceased and injured persons filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. All the claim petitions were head together and disposed of by the impugned judgment and award whereby, the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.446/1984 were awarded Rs.2.00 Lacs as compensation, the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.447/1984 were awarded Rs.80,000/- as compensation, the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.538/1984 were awarded Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation, the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.564/1984 were awarded Rs.1,62,000/- Lacs as compensation and the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.579/1984 were awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation together with interest and cost.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals mainly contending that the vehicle in which the deceased and the injured persons were travelling was a 'goods vehicle' and therefore, it could not be saddled with any liable in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, AIR 1999 SC 489.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question in which the deceased and the 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 Mallawwa's case (supra). Hence, the appeals of the Insurance Company deserve to be allowed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is 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 claimant, then the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants but, shall be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle and if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimant, then the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and the claimant shall be at liberty to recover the balance amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Registry is directed to transmit the amount lying with this Court to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top