UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. HANSABA JAYARAJSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the original opponent no.3 - present appellant has challenged the judgement and decree dated 20.10.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P No. 37 of 1987 whereby the Tribunal directed the original opponents to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

(2.) THE original applicants -present respondents no.1 to 6 had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for Rs. 2,00,000/ - for the death of one Shri Jayrajsinh Vajubhai Sarvariya during the motor vehicular accident which had occurred on 13.10.1986 on Palitana road while the deceased was travelling in a delivery rickshaw (chhakada) bearing no. GTS 7696 alongwith a bag of oil cakes by paying fare. The auto which belonged to original opponent nos. 2 was being driven by original opponent no.1 at an excessive speed. Due to such rash and negligent driving, the auto turned upside down and Shri Jayrajsinh. As a result of the said accident, he died. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. Mr Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the present appellant ought to have been held not liable to pay the compensation amount as the delivery rickshaw whose carrying capacity is less than 900 k.g cannot carry any passenger. He has further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was a breach of terms of the policy as four passengers were travelling in the rickshaw.

(3.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties. I have gone through the averments made in the appeal and documents placed on record including the award of the Tribunal. From the perusal of the award, it is clear that the present appellant had strongly contended before the Tribunal that the auto bearing no. GTS 7696 was a goods vehicle and under the terms and conditions of the policy it was to be used only under a private carrier permit and that the policy does not cover the risk for the use of the auto for the conveyance of passenger for hire or reward. The present appellant had further contended that they would not be liable to satisfy any award as four passengers were travelling in the vehicle which was not meant for carrying of passengers but was a delivery van (Chhakada).