ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MINOR PRAYAN BABUBHAI PATEL THRO BABUBHAI MANABHAI PATNI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from one and the same motor accident and the claim applications, which have been decided by common judgment and order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mehsana and, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. The offending vehicle is a matador bearing registration No. GAQ 4465 which is owned by respondent No. 3 Shantaben Govindbhai Patel. Respondent No. 5- Mir Asrafali Rasulbhai was the driver of this vehicle on the fateful day. He also sustained injury as a result of this accident, and he filed M.A.C. Petition No. 879/86 for compensation. Two of the victims of the incident, i.e. wife and son of claimant-respondent Babubhai Manabhai Patni have died in the accident, who filed Claim Applications Nos. 362/86 and 363/86. The offending motor vehicle was insured with the appellant herein.

(2.) The matador which was driven by Mir Asrafali Rasulbhai when met with the accident on 4.11.1985 was carrying therein number of persons. While driving the vehicle the driver lost control on the steering near Hanaspur village and the vehicle dashed against a tree. Thus this accident has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Matador. In this accident some of the persons expired and some sustained injuries. There were in all 14 claim applications for compensation inclusive of Claim Application Nos. 362/86 and 363/85. The learned Tribunal under its impugned award awarded Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively in these two claim applications. Against the judgment of the Tribunal only in these claim applications the Insurance Company has preferred these two appeals; and in other claim applications appeals have not been preferred. The appellant has given out the explanation for this that in other claim applications small amounts have been awarded. In one of these appeals, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 25,000/-. Be that as it may.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has committed serious illegality in holding that the deceased were not fare paid passengers in the Matador. It has next been contended that the vehicle was a private vehicle and by carrying passengers for hire and reward the insured has committed breach of the terms of the policy and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have awarded compensation to the claimants. On the other hand the Counsel for the claimants supported the judgment of the Tribunal.