UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BHAVNAGAR Vs. GOHEL JANKBAWD/O. KARANSINGH PATHUBHA, AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the evening of 27-4-77, at about 6.30 p.m. there was a collision between motor-cycle no G.T.I.394 and S.T. luxury bus No.G.T.I.5715 at Dhasa on Bhavnagar-Rajkot Highway and, as a result of this collision, one Karansingh, who was on the motor-cycle as pillion rider, was killled. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, widow and four minor children of the said Karansinh, filed claim petition No. 60 of 1977 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, claiming Rs. 70,000/- as compensation from the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in the case, namely, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and the driver of the aforesaid luxury bus on the one hand and from the opponents Nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely, the motor-cycle insurer, on the other hand. At the end of the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident, which proved fatal for Karansinh, had resulted solely from the negligent and rash driving of the motor-cycle by the opponent No. 3 while the opponent No. 2 bus driver was not in any way responsible for the accident The Tribunal, therefore, found that the opponent No. 3-motor cycle driver as the tort-feasor; the opponent No. 4-motor cycle owner on the basis of his vicarious liability; and the opponent No. 5- motor-cycle insurer, were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal quantified compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 54,360/- and passed an award in that sum with future interest thereon and costs of the claim petition against the original opponents Nos. 3 to 5. In other words, the Tribunal made the orig. opponent No. 5 insurance company liable to be bound by the award passed by it against the opponents Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) The aforesaid award of the Tribunal making the insurance company, orig. opponent No. 5, liable to be bound thereby, has aggrieved the insurance company and, therefore, it has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant-insurance company it was contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants that neither under the statute nor under the policy, the insurance company was liable to cover, nor had it covered any risk or injury or death of the pillion rider. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the policy was on the record of the case and it clearly showed that it was an Act policy, meaning thereby that risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the contract evidenced by the policy and it was also not compulsory on the part of the insurance company to cover such risk. It was on this basis that the appellents assailed the award passed by the Tribunal is so far as it was against the insurance company.