GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE four appeals are by the claimants in a motor vehicle accident, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rejecting their claim by judgment dated January 15, 1985. Since all the four cases are concerned with one accident, I have accepted the prayer of learned counsel for the parties to decide them by one common judgment.
(2.) ON June 5, 1980, the deceased, Madan Singh, and others were travelling in truck No. RSB 4919 from Datli to Dadu and on the way, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the truck could not be controlled and suddenly it turned down due to which Madan Singh died along with others. In all, four persons died, and their relatives have filed these claim petitions. The persons who died are Babu Khan, Mangla, Madan Singh and Phool Chand. The driver is Ramesh Chand. The truck No. is RSB 4919. The name of the owner of the truck is 'Bahari Goods Carrier '. The first and the foremost point is whether there can be any liability for these passengers who were travelling in the truck. The finding of the Tribunal is that they were travelling after payment of Rs. 10 each and therefore the travelling of these passengers in the goods truck was for hire and reward and it was not a joy ride. In view of this finding, the judgment of the Full Bench in Santra Bai v. Kailash [1985] RLR 635 ; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 714 (Raj) applies. According to the Full Bench decision and the principles which have been deduced, it has been held that in cases of goods vehicles, the insurance company would not be liable in cases of gratuitous passengers a joy ride on their own responsibility, but would be liable in cases of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in the vehicle. Obviously, since these four passengers were being carried for hire or reward, as found by the Tribunal, the principles of the Full Bench judgment would make the insurance company liable. The next question is two -fold. (1) What is the liability of the insurance company, and (2) as to what and to how much extent the claim should be allowed. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, Mr. Srivastava's contention is that it is limited to Rs. 15,000 for each of the passengers. Mr. Bhartia, counsel for the claimants, and Mr. Singhvi, counsel for the owner of the truck on the contrary, contends that the insurance policy contains a clause of unlimited liability and, therefore, in the present case, the liability would be unlimited.
(3.) I have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the original insurance policy which was shown to me during the arguments by Mr. Srivastava. Undoubtedly, the insurance policy at the bottom of the page has got a clause 'unlimited liability w.e.f. from 26 -8 -80 '.;