- (1.) This appeal by the owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.1.2008 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 137 of 2000 whereby he has directed the appellant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the claimants-respondents on account of death of the deceased Rajendra Mahto.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The claimants-respondents filed Claim Case for the grant of compensation stating inter alia, that the deceased Rajendra Mahto was going to Lohardaga by truck bearing Registration No. BR 42/5-2184 and the driver was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner, due to which the driver lost his control over the truck which fell down from a bridge and the passengers sustained fatal injuries. The deceased Rajendra Mahto died on the way to hospital. The appellant who was O.P. No. 1, owner of the truck, filed written statement stating that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation amount. The respondent-Insurance Company appeared and contested the case staling inter alia that the driver of the vehicle was not made party. Respondent-Insurance Company's case is that the deceased was travelling in the truck as gratuitous passenger and the owner of the vehicle had not paid any premium for covering the risk of the passengers. The Tribunal after recording evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants-respondents came to the conclusion that the truck was coming from Kuru and was going to Lohardaga. At the relevant time, some passengers boarded at Kuru and some passengers including the deceased had boarded at Jinamore and some passengers boarded on the truck at different placed on the way passengers and paid fare to the driver and the cleaner on the way. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the truck was not hired by the passengers as goods carrier, rather they boarded on the offending truck at different places as gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal firstly observed: From the oral evidence (sic) reveals that offending truck was cowing from Kuru and was going to Lohardaga at the relevant time and some passengers boarded at Kuru and some passengers including deceased Rajendra Mahto had boarded on the truck at Jimamore and some other passengers were also boarded on the truck at the different places on the way and passengers had paid fare to the driver and cleaner on the way. From the evidence of the claimant and co-passengers it is clear that offending truck was not hired by the passengers as goods carrier and they had boarded on the offending truck at different places as Gratuitous passengers and deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck which met at (sic) Bridge. I also find that claimants are widow and children of the deceased hence they are legal heir of the deceased Rajendra Mahto. The Tribunal further held, Issue No. 4. I have found that deceased and other passengers were traveling by the offending truck at the relevant time as gratuitous passengers and offending truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the carriage of Goods. Thus in my view the owner of the offending truck (OP No. 1) has valid terms and conditions of the insurance policy for which he had paid premium to the Insurance Company. It is also settled principle of law that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim amount to the owner of the vehicle and hence, owner of the vehicle O.P. No. 1 is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger rather he was travelling in the offending vehicle with his goods. According to the learned Counsel, as the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods and not as gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company is only liable to satisfy the award.;