UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. PUNKI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of accident dated 4th August, 2006 and, therefore they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. Miscellaneous Appeals No. 2910/08, 2911/08, 2914/08, 2917/08 and 2916/08, except Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2956/08 have been filed by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). The Insurance Company has challenged the common award dated 18th July, 2008, passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, in claim case No. 125/08, whereby the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation on the insurer alongwith owner and driver of the offending vehicle, solely on the ground that Shankar Singh (PW-3) who lodged the first information report before the investigating agency, had stated that all the claimants where travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. MP-11/B-3989, whereas he in his Court statement has deposed that he was not travelling as a fare paid passenger and in the first information report lodged by him he has not stated that the deceased and other passengers were travelling as fare paid passengers and any fare was paid to the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that they were third party and as per Insurance policy (Ext. D/5) extra premium of Rs. 700/- was paid and risk of the deceased and other persons, who were travelling in the private vehicle was covered and no further premium is required and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the third party.

(2.) It is not disputed before this Court that the accident had occurred, that the claimants had sustained injuries and due to the accident deceased Mangilal died in the said accident.

(3.) Shri Pradeep Gupta, Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer has drawn my attention to paragraphs 26 to 33 and 40 to 43 of the award passed by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has led emphasis on the factum that there was discrepancy in the statement made by AW-3 in the Court and the FIR being initial report should be given credence. Being of this view the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that the deceased and other claimants were not travelling as passenger in the jeep and, hence, they were covered by the insurance policy.