NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KISHORIBEN MAHENDRABHAI PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been heare together at the instance of the learned Counsel 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 Petitions 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 a.m. when the Matador 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. 79/82 from which First Appeal No. 1408/84 arises the claim put forth was for Rs. 1 lac while the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. In MACP No 80/82 from which First Appeal No. 1409/84 arises, a sum of Rs. 9.600/ - was awarded as against the claim of Rs. 50,000/ - made therein. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,700/ - to the claimant of MACP No. 210/82 from which First Appeal No. 1413/84 arises against the claim of Rs. 25.000/ -.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the evidence on record established that the claimants were using the vehicle on hire, that there was an exclusionary term in the policy making it clear that it did not cover use of the vehicle for hire, that no permit was obtained for using the said vehicle as a commercial vehicle as required by Section 42 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and that the owner of the vehicle was aware that the vehicle was being used for hire. He, therefore, submitted that the Insurance Company was not at all liable to pay the compensation under the impugned award to any of these claimants.