ABDUL JABBAR Vs. KESAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant-respondents filed a claim-petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, District Sawai Madhopur, (for short the learned Tribunal), on account of the death of Shri Mohan Lal in a motor accident occurred on 21st Nov., 1993 involving Jeep No. RJU 7329. It is alleged that the driverof the Jeep (respondent No. 5) drove the Jeep rashly and negligently, and on account of which, it overturned and fell into a valley of Mehandipur Balaji. Mohan Lal sustained serious injuries, and he died. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident, and his income was stated to be Rs. 2,500.00p.m. After considering the evidence, material on record and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 87,200.00 as the amount of compensation against the owner/appellant. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the Jeep, and, as such, the Insurance Company, respondent No.7, is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant-respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 21st Sept., -1996 of the learned Tribunal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle in question, has preferred this appeal for reducing the amount of compensation and making the Insurance Company, respondent No. 7 liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

(2.) At the time of arguments, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, only. Later on, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, Insurance Company, submitted the written arguments.

(3.) The deceased, Mohan Lal was travelling in the Jeep in question at the time of accident. According to Kesar (PW 1), the deceased paid Rs. 5.00 as fare, but the driver, Raees Ahmed (DW 2) has stated that the deceased did not pay any fare. The certified copies of the testimony of witnesses were shown to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The certified copy of the Insurance Policy (Ex. A-1) was also shown to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Kesar (PW 1) has specifically stated that she was not present at the time the accident which took place. Therefore, her statement that the deceased paid Rs., 5.00 as fare cannot be accepted. Raees Ahmed (DW 2), driver of the Jeep has specifically stated that the deceased did not pay any fare. He was standing on the foot board behind the Jeep. A perusal of the Insurance Policy, Ex. A-l, would show that the vehicle was insured for the use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for the Insureds own business. The policy did not cover the use for hire or reward. According to Raees Ahmed (DW 2), driver of the vehicle, in question, the Jeep was carrying rice for the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the Jeep, at the time of accident, was being used in connection with the work of the Insured himself. Merely because, rice for the owner of the vehicle was being carried in the Jeep, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being used as goods vehicle. In my opinion, the vehicle was used as a Jeep for the purposes of its owner, therefore, the Jeep was being used within the scope of the Insurance Policy, Ex. A-1. It cannot be said that the Jeep in question at the relevant time was being used for the purposes other than one mentioned in the certificate of Insurance, Ex. A- 1.