J.C. Verma, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the respondents challenging the Award and Judgment dated 5th May, 1994 passed by Shri Brij Mohan Chouhan, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Neem Ka Thana in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 38/88 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,92,800/-along with interest from the date of the claim application.
(2.) Facts given in the case are that the claim application was filed on 5th August, 1987 alleging that on 5th March, 1987. one deceased Shri Rakesh Kumar while returning from Khatu Shyamji to his village in a truck bearing registration No. HYD-957 wherein he had boarded at the instance of the driver and had died because of accident. The truck met an accident and because of the negligence of the truck driver said Rakesh Kumar was injured. He was moved to the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur but died on the way. He was matriculate and was earning about Rs. 720/- to Rs. 1,000/- p.m. An amount of Rs. 6 lacs was claimed as compensation. Issues were framed in regard to negligent driving of the truck and also about the entitlement of the compensation. On the evidence having been led by the parties on issue No. 1, it was found by the Tribunal that the truck was being driven by Arvind. It was found on issue No. 1 that had the truck driver driven the vehicle cautiously, he would have avoided the accident and thus the accident had been caused because of the negligent and rash driving of the truck driver. On issue No. 2, it had been found that the deceased was earning about Rs. 800/- and thus a total amount of Rs. 1,92,800/- was awarded.
(3.) Another argument was raised on the objection having been taken by the Insurance Company that the truck was insured as a goods carrier vehicle and no passenger was insured. Policy had been produced Ex. 1. It was argued that there is no risk covered so far as passengers are concerned and maximum insurance liability is Rs. 1.50 lacs. It was further argued that no extra premium was paid. After discussing certain authorities quoted by the respective parties, the Tribunal had come to a finding that as a matter of fact the driver had allowed the passengers to travel with the intention of taking fare from these passengers and thus none of the passenger in the truck was a gratuitous passenger. The issue was decided against the Insurance Company.;