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 SONABEN PATLIABHAI RATHVA & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MS VIRAJ FOZDAR for MS MEGHA JANI for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 -
6. ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 07/05/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. This group of appeals involve common questions on facts and law and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.] Chhota Udepur, District Baroda in M.A.C.P. No. 1871/2006, 1856/2006 to 1870/2006 and 1872/2006, whereby the claim petitions were partly allowed and and the appellant-Insurance Company, along with other original opponents in each of the claim petitions, were held jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation to the original claimants.
2. The above claim petitions came to be filed in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 23.08.2006 on Bavla Bagodra road, National Highway No. 8, near Sim of Village Bhamsara involving the Truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-X-617 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the vehicle in which the deceased and injured persons were travelling at the relevant point of time, was a vehicle classified as 'goods vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company could not have been held liable to satisfy the claim in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savitri Devi and others etc., 2012(4) SCALE 111.
4. It appears from the record that the vehicle in which the deceased / claimants were travelling at the time of accident was a 'goods vehicle'. Under the provisions of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company of a 'goods vehicle' cannot be fastened with the liability of making payment of compensation, if any injury is caused or death takes place while travelling in such vehicle when the person concerned is not the 'employee' of the owner of such vehicle. In the present case, the deceased / claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the principle rendered in Savitri Devi's case (supra), the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability of making payment of compensation and hence, it is required to be exonerated from such liability.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The common 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 common 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