NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GORDHANBHAI AMBALAL BAROT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged by this appeal the judgment and final order of the M.A.C. Tribunal No. 1 Ahmedabad (Rural) Narol dated 26-3-1979 whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the opponents to pay to the respondent No. 1 original applicant Gordhanbhai Ambalal Barot a sum of Rs. 78 600 together with running interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the application till payment or realisation.

(2.) Mr. R. H. Mehta the learned Advocate for the Appellant raised before us a sole issue as to whether the liability of the appellant was not limited only to the extent of Rs. 50 0 and that if it was so the Tribunal has erred in making it liable along with other respondents to the total extent of Rs. 78 600 with interest etc. The submission of Mr. Mehta is that the Tribunal has erred in not recognising the concerned vehicle bearing Registration No. 2472 as a goods vehicle as defined in sec. 2(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in treating the same vehicle as covered under clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act. Mr. Mehta cited before us the relevant sec. 2(8) of the Act which relates to the definition of goods vehicle. It runs as under:

(3.) Thus the burden of proof is clearly on the Insurance Company to prove that its liability was limited and thus it was its duty to further prove that the vehicle concerned was a goods vehicle. No attempt whatever is made by the appellant-Insurance Company to discharge the onus of proving this issue. We have also perused the Panchnama of the vehicle (Exh. 76). It is stated inter alia in the Panchnama. *** It is pertinent to observe that there is no mention in the Panchnama of any trailer attached to the vehicle. Further it appears from the perusal of the Panchnama that the vehicle had a pump fitted upon it. Thus the relevant evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the vehicle was not a goods vehicle and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the vehicle falls within clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act is unassailable.