BHANDHARPADA JUTH GALICHA GRUH Vs. KESHUBEN RUVAJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Tolia for appellant - owner of vehicle.

(2.) IN this appeal, appellant has challenged award passed by MAC Tribunal, surat in MACP No. 644 of 1996. Before claims Tribunal, respondent No. 2 - present appellant remained absent. The driver also remained absent. Therefore, against opponent Nos. 1 and 2, claims Tribunal has decided matter ex-parte.

(3.) THE observations made in Para. 5 by claims Tribunal that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 which includes appellant have been duly served with summons of petition but they have not appeared and therefore, they have been proceeded ex-parte. So appellant has not filed any reply before claims Tribunal. No contention has been raised and no evidence has been led and therefore, matter has been decided by claims Tribunal in absence of appellant. The Insurance Co. has raised contention that owner of tempo insured was under an obligation to take all precautions to ensure safety of the goods and should not have allowed any unauthorized passengers to travel in the said tempo. Therefore, according to him, insured owner has deliberately committed breach of contract and therefore, Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any amount of compensation because coverage for carrying unauthorized passengers in goods vehicle not given and extended in favour of owner of vehicle.