DATTATRAYA S. KHARBHASAGA Vs. SEETABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the claimants that on 4.1.2007 when the deceased along with others was proceeding to Savadatti in a TATA sumo vehicle bearing No. KA -36/M -1289, the driver drove the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner. The vehicle turned turtle and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. His wife, minor children and his mother filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal on contest, granted a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/ - along with interest. The owner of the vehicle was directed to deposit entire compensation amount. The insurer was absolved from the liability. Aggrieved by the same, the owner has filed the present appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Sri Venkatesh C. Malabadi, contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the findings of the Tribunal that the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award is inappropriate and will have to be interfered with.

(3.) ON hearing learned counsels', I' am of the considered view that there is no merit in the Appeal. The Division Bench of this Court held that the passenger in a private vehicle cannot be considered as a third party. In case an extra premium is paid only then such a passenger is covered and the insurer is liable to satisfy the award. Admittedly in the instant case, no extra premium is collected. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh and others also covers the said issue. In terms of judgment of Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I' am of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.