NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PREMJIBHAI MANJIBHAI VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These three appeals have been heard together at the instance of the learned Counsels for both the sides as they arise from the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch made on 31-3-1984 in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 79, 80 and 210 of 1982. It is stated that the appeals which were filed against the common award in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 81, 82 and 83 of 1982 were summarily dismissed.

(2.) . The accident took place on 12-12-1981 at about 1-30 AM when the Metador tempo bearing registration No. GJG 5586 carrying the claimants for going to village Fagvel for pilgrimage turned turtle near village Vavdi. According to the claimants the vehicle which was driven by Sikkander, the respondent No. 1 who is son of the owner of the vehicle Isap, the respondent No. 2 had turned turtle because of rash and negligent driving of Sikkander. It was the case of the claimants that they had travelled in the said vehicle on hire. In MACP No. 78 of 1982 from which Civil Appeal No. 1408 of 1984 arises, the claim put forth was for Rs. 1 lac while the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000.00. In MACP No. 80 of 1982 from which Civil Appeal No. 1409 of 1984 arises, a sum of Rs. 9,600.00 was awarded as against the claim of Rs. 50,000.00 made therein. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,700/ - to the claimant of MACP No. 210 of 1982 from which Civil Appeal No. 1413 of 1984 arises against the claim of Rs. 25,000.00.

(3.) . The Insurance Company, appellant in all these three appeals has taken up the contention that it is not liable for any amount because the claimants were travelling in the vehicle on hire and as per the exclusionary clause in the Policy, the Policy did not cover the use for hire or reward. As the said private vehicle was covered for insurance only if it was used for social, domestic and pleasant purposes and for the insurers' business, the Insurance Company, according to it, was not liable to pay compensation in respect of accident to any of the claimants. The Tribunal while holding that there was evidence to show that the insurer may not have become liable held against the insurer on the ground that specific defence was not taken in the written statement.