Liability of the insurer to compensate the claimants for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, even though the claimants were gratuitous passengers, as the policy covered the risk of passengers.

1. These appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. as well as the claimant challenging the common judgment and award dated 7.8.2007 made in MVC Nos.2546 to 2548 of 2005 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Gokak (for short `MACT').

2. MFA Nos.14730 to 14732 of 2007 have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. questioning the liability fastened on it to compensate the claimants, whereas MFA No.20540/2008 has been filed by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation.

3. Since the common question of law is involved in these appeals and the common judgment and award passed by the MACT is challenged, all these appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The respondents in MFA Nos.14730 to 14732 of 2007 filed claim petitions contending that on 14.6.2005 at about 5.00 p.m, they alongwith a daughter of the claimant in MFA No.20540/2008, Kumari Nikhita were travelling as gratuitous passengers in a jeep bearing Regn. No.KA-23/M 3009 from Mudalagi to Gurlapur. The said vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a motor cycle, as a result of which, the claimants sustained injuries and a minor child by name Nikhita, aged 1½ years of the claimant in MFA No.20540/2008 died at the spot. In the claimant petitions, it was contended that prior to the accident, they were doing coolie work, tailoring and vegetal vending and earning Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,500/- p.m. respectively. In view of the said road traffic accident, they have become permanently disabled persons and sought for compensation from the respondents.

5. The 1st respondent in the claim petitions entered appearance i.e. owner of Jeep and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petitions with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He, however, contended that the offending vehicle is covered by insurance policy and the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license. Hence, the 2nd respondent is to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions as against him.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Co. in the claim petition filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petitions and also contended that the offending vehicle was insured with it as a private car inmates is not covered by the insurance policy. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license. Hence, the 1st respondent has violated the policy of the conditions. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed necessary issues. The claimants in order prove their case examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and examined the treated doctor as PW3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P51. On behalf of respondents, no witnesses has been examined. However, the insurance policy of the vehicle was marked as Ex.RW1.

8. The MACT after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot panchanama, MVI report, charge sheet etc. held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the accident had occurred and three claimants sustained injuries and a minor child aged 1½ years by name, Nikhita died in the accident and they are entitled for compensation. The MACT taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- in respect of the first claimant and sum of Rs.6,000/- in respect of the 2nd claimant with interest at 6% p.a. in MVC No.2546/2005. Further, the MACT taking into consideration the injuries sustained and fracture of right radius, right pubis and 3rd to 8th ribs of left side awarded Rs.2,15,600/- in respect of the claimant in MVC No.2547/2005 with interest at 6% p.a. The MACT relying upon the judgment of th