S. T. Kharche, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Pathak, learned counsel, for the appellant, Mr. Kukdey, learned counsel, for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, for respondents 3 and 4 finally.
(2.) This appeal is against the Judgment and Award dated 9-12-2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 433 of 1996 whereby the Tribunal directed the respondent/owner including the Insurance company to pay an amount of compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition i. e. 7-10-1993 till its realisation. The accident occurred on 9-10-1992. Narayan died in the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle - i. e. Tipper bearing registration No. MH-31/6526. Respondents no. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of the deceased who had filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was travelling in the aforesaid goods vehicle, i. e. Tipper truck on the date of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay compensation. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 (2) t. A. C. 1 (SC) wherein it has been held that there is no statutory liability on owner of goods vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger and the Insurance company is not statutorily liable for payment of compensation to gratuitous passengers travelling in goods vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance company therefore contended that it is only the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident who is liable to pay compensation since the deceased was admittedly travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. He contended that whether the deceased was travelling as a passenger by paying fare is not of much relevance and when it is an admitted position that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation.;