ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RANJITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed Miscellenous Appeal No.3744/2010, Miscellenous Appeal No.3745/2010 & Miscellenous Appeal No.3746/2010 whereas appellant/claimant Satyendra @ Mahendra Sahu & appellant/claimant Laxman have filed Miscellenous Appeal No.859/2010 & Miscellenous Appeal No.860/2010 being aggrieved of common award dtd. 8/1/2020 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Multai, District Betul in M.C.C No.35/2009, M.C.C No.44/2009, M.C.C No.24/2009.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited submits that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous. The Claims Tribunal has overlooked the evidence of Claimant Witness No.3 Chintu Chilhare, who deposes that he was sitting in the Pick Up Van bearing registration No.MP48-G0258 and when it was travelling on a high speed, the brakes had failed resulting in ramming of the Pick Up Van to a Wall causing injuries to the claimants. The evidence of Claimant Witness No.3 Chintu Chilhare has remained unrebutted. On the contrary, in cross-examination, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 Devidas had put the aforesaid question to him and he had accepted that he was sitting in the Pick Up Van knowing well that it is meant for transportation of goods and not for carrying passengers. In cross-examination, this witness also admits that since the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were known to him, therefore, he was sitting in the said Pick Up Van.

(3.) The aforesaid finding of the Claims Tribunal that Claimant Witness No.3 Chintu Chilhare was not sitting in the Pick Up Van is contrary to the evidence given by Claimant Witness No.3 Chintu Chilhare. Infact, in cross-examination on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, he admits that three persons were sitting on the rear side of the Pick Up Van and he was sitting in front and, therefore, he deposed that the offending vehicle was moving at the speed of 50 to 60 kilometer per hour as the meter was in front of him. Thus, it is apparent that the claimants were not entitled to travel in a goods vehicle. It has also come on record and as deposed by Claimant Witness No.3 Chintu Chilhare that the claimants were sitting as gratuitous passengers for which there is no coverage in the Insurance Policy and, therefore, the Oriental Insurance Company should have been either exonerated or at best the Claims Tribunal should have passed an award of pay & recover in favour of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited directing it to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner and driver of Pick Up Van No.No.MP48-G-0258.