(1.) These appeals raise a common question as to whether the Insurance Company should have been held liable for compensating the claimants in respect of the accident to a goods vehicle in which the deceased were being carried at the time of the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) has held only the owner and the driver liable and has absolved Insurance Company of all liability. In each of these appeals, the Insurance Company has filed cross-objections as the sum of Rupees 50,000/- in each case, the Insurance Company had to pay as no fault liability was not directed to be reimbursed by the owner to it. The owner also filed cross-objections against the Insurance Company being absolved of the liability. The appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) On November 8, 1996 at about 5.30 to 6.00 A.M. goods vehicle No. RJC 4009 capsized and turned turtle killing 12 labourers who were being carried in it. It was claimed that these labourers used to work with one Gopikishan Tapria Contractor and they were going back to resume their work after enjoying Diwali holidays. It was also claimed that they were being carried under a contract between Gopi Kishan Tapria and the owner of the truck. In reply to the claim petitions, the owner and the driver took the plea that the accident took place because of failure of brakes and the driver of the truck was not negligent. The Insurance Company denied any liability because of breach of terms of policy. The Insurance Company also contended that it did not have any statutory liability also to pay compensation. The Tribunal held the owner and the driver responsible but absolved the Insurance Company finding that the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers in the truck. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of this Court in Santra Bai v. Prahlad, 1985 Raj LW 354 : (AIR 1986 Raj 101 ), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dhundhmma, 1992 ACJ 1 (Kant), New India Insurance Company v. Kanchan, 1994 ACJ 138 : (AIR 1994 Orissa 65) (FB) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jumibai, 1989 ACJ 1150 (Bombay).
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants mainly challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company was not liable. There was a feeble attempt for enhancement of compensation also but ultimately that also was not abandoned.