LAWS(MPH)-2002-10-81

KULDIP SINGH Vs. NANIBAI

Decided On October 24, 2002
KULDIP SINGH Appellant
V/S
NANIBAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS /owners have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 19.11.1997, passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barwaha, in Claim Case No. 139/92, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for the death of late Shukhram, who was aged about 60 years, which is on higher side and also on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Co. from its liability. The accident and the liability of the owner are not disputed before me.

(2.) THE Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - as the same was claimed by the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased. No cross objection has been filed in this appeal. It is also not in dispute before me that on the day of accident i.e., 23.10.1984, truck No. MPI/9331 met with an accident, in which 53 persons were injured and 8 were died. In the said truck, it is said, as many as 63 passengers were travelling, who were coming after attending a rally of late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the passengers were not allowed to travel in the truck. In the case of Mallawa (ACJ 1999 SC Page 1), it has been held by the Apex Court that the Insurance Co. is not liable for death or injuries sustained by persons carried in a goods vehicle either along with their goods or after paying fare or gratification. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Co. from its liability and on this no interference can be made in the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and after perusal of the record, I find that no ground is made out for any interference in the award by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.