- (1.) THE appellant, Om Prakash Goyal, the owner of the offending vehicle, is aggrieved by the award dated 02.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby while granting a compensation of Rs.4,23,000/ - in favour of the claimants -respondents no. 1 and 2, the learned Tribunal has absolved the Insurance Company.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on 07.04.2008, Miss Monika Mathur and her colleagues from Chirag Inernational were travelling in Safari Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ -14 -U -3506. The said jeep was driven by Surendra Singh, and was owned by the present appellant. They were travelling from Jaipur to Ajmer in order to pray at the shrine of Mohammad Chishti. While they were returning, Surendra Singh, the driver, drove the jeep rashly and negligently. Near the Reliance Petrol Pump situated on National Highway No.8, Jaipur, Madanganj Byepass Road, one of the back tyres burst and the Safari jeep turned turtle twice or thrice. It went off the road into the Kachcha area. Unfortunately, Miss Monika Mathur came under the jeep. She sustained grievous injuries; subsequently, she expired. Her mother and her sister filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to substantiate their case, they examined a single witness and submitted seventeen documents. The Insurance Company filed a reply. It contended that according to Insurance Policy it had insured only seven passengers of the Jeep and had taken a premium of Rs. 350/ -. For the same, its liability was limited only to Rs. 1 lakh per passenger. Since it had paid the said amount, by cheque No. 952314 dated 09.06.2008, therefore, it stood absolved of its liability to pay any further compensation to the claimants. After going to the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award as aforementioned. While passing the award, the learned Tribunal absolved the Insurance Company of its liability. Hence, this appeal before this Court by the owner of the offending vehicle.
(3.) MR . G.C. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court: - Firstly, the claimants did not produce any evidence with regard to the fact whether any fare was paid by the deceased, Monika Mathur, or not. Therefore, she cannot be said to be ''a passenger '' in the offending vehicle. Secondly, the appellant had taken out a comprehensive policy of insurance for the said vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire compensation amount. Hence, it could not argue that its liability is limited to only Rs. 1 lakh. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ahmadi Begum and Ors. [2011 ACJ 2345 (AP)], National Insurance Company ltd. vs. Balakishnan and Anr. [(2013) 1 SCC 731] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chand Chhabra and Ors. [2012 ACJ 326 (P&H)]. He has also produced a copy of the Insurance Policy (Ex.11). ;