- (1.) -THIS appeal has been made by the insurance company from a judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar, dated 30th October, 2007. By preferring this appeal the insurance company contended before this Court that occurrence of death of the deceased cannot be covered by the insurance policy.
(2.) WE have seen the insurance policy, being Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application made in the appeal. It appears that the premium was taken on 4 heads namely T. P. , D. R. +c. L. , N. F. P. P. and T. P. P. D. Since the appellant has taken the plea that it is not liable to pay compensation on account of death of deceased being a gratuitous passenger, we called upon explanation of the insurance company in this regard, when they have placed the same, being information dated 22nd February, 2008 giving the full form of such heads as follows : JUDGEMENT_93_ALLLR72_2008Html1.htm Such information given to this Court be kept with the record in original.
(3.) APART from that we have gone through the deposition of the development officer of the insurance company itself. However, the recording of the deposition by the Tribunal is quoted hereunder : "from the side of opposite party No. 2 D. W. 1 Sri Fateh Singh Bhati Development Officer was produced in support of their version. Witness D. W. 1 Fateh Singh Bhati has stated on oath that he is submitting the attested copy of insurance policy of Tata Vehicle No. U. P.-13-A-7784. This vehicle was goods carrying vehicle which is registered and approved for carrying the goods. In the aforesaid vehicle, the insurance company have no liability to pay compensation for passengers. Cross-examinations have been made at a great length with D. W. 1 and in the cross-examination it was accepted by him that including driver of Tata 407 three persons can seat in which a driver, a cleaner and a businessman used to seat. In the terms and conditions of policy it has mentioned that apart from the driver, a cleaner and business man can use to seat. Thus as per the statement of Fateh Singh Bhati D. W. 1, it is clear that the insurance policy is valid for driver, cleaner and a businessman of any one. D. W. 1 Fateh Singh Bhati has also admitted that in the insurance policy it has no where mentioned that gratuitous passenger cannot get compensation. During the course of cross-examination, the D. W. 1 Fateh Singh Bhati has also accepted that the Tata 407 vehicle No. U. P.-13-A-7784 was insured by the National Insurance Company Bulahdshahar at the time of accident. In the policy in question the third party risk is covered and for this the premium has already been paid to the insurance company, as such it is clear that the vehicle is validly covered for third party. The deceased was travelling along with driver of Tata 407 which comes under third party and as per the terms and conditions of the policy apart from the driver and cleaner, he Was entitled to travel, in such circumstances, the deceased cannot be said as gratuitous passenger. " (emphasis supplied from the translated copy of the award ). ;