- (1.) The owner and the driver, appellant Nos.l & 2 respectively, have challenged the award dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-for the death of Bherulal to the claimant-respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2004 Bhairulal Meena was traveling in a Pick-up Jeep, bearing Registration No.RJ-14 2G-2831, coming from Ringus Dist. Sikar to his village Daulatpur after having delivered the goods, which belonged to him, at Ringus. Around 8.30 PM at night while the Jeep was traveling between Sikar and Chomu2 Chandwaji Road, the driver of the jeep, appellant No.2, drove the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the Pickup Jeep went of road and hit a tree. Resultantly, Bhairu Lal suffered grievous injuries and finally scummed to his injuries. Since, the claimants were dependent upon Bhairu Lal, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate the case, they examined three witnesses and submitted twenty-eight documents. The appellants did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the case was decided against them ex-parte. The Insurance Company examined only a single witness and submitted a single document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and directed that the compensation should be paid by appellant Nos. 1 & 2 severely and jointly.
(3.) Mr. Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions before this Court : Firstly, that according to the claimant-defendant No.l, Smt. Rukma Devi, her husband Bhairu Lal was carrying his own goods in the Pickup Jeep and had gone to Ringus to deliver the goods. After having delivered the goods, he was returning back to his village Daulatpura, when the accident took place. Since, Bhairulal had gone to deliver his own goods, he was traveling in the capacity of "the ; owner of the goods". Thus, according to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), Bhairulal would fall within the definition of the word 'third party'. Therefore, the Insurance Company should have been held liable for paying the compensation amount, instead of the appellants. Secondly, even if, the accident had occurred after the goods were delivered, even then Bhairulal would continue to be in the capacity of "the owner of the goods". Therefore, he would be covered under Section 147 of the Act. Thirdly, in the alternate, in case Bhairulal is not seen as the owner of the goods, then while returning he would surely fall under the definition of "non-fare paying passenger". Hence, even then the Insurance Company would be liable for payment of the compensation amount. Fourthly, the learned Tribunal has wrongly concluded that Bhairulal was traveling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. The learned Tribunal has ignored the testimony of claimant-respondent No.l. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. Lastly, there is no evidence on record to show that the breach of policy was so fundamental as to make the appellants liable for the payment of the compensation amount.;