The court reinforced the 'Pay and Recover' principle, mandating insurers to pay compensation to claimants for gratuitous passenger injuries, even if policy conditions were breached.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and common judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed in M.V.C. No. 2713/2016 and M.V.C. No. 2714/2016 by the learned VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short, the ‘trial Court’), they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. M.F.A. No. 102796/2023 is filed by the claimants in M.V.C. No. 2713/2016, who are wife and children of Laxman Rajanagol @ Naik, i.e., the deceased, whereas M.F.A. No. 102872/2023 is filed by injured-Channappa in M.V.C. No. 2714/2016. Both the appeals are filed challenging the liability to pay compensation being fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle and seeking for enhancement of compensation.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day, i.e., on 08.10.2016 Laxman Bhima Rajanagol @ Naik and Channappa Basappa Hittanagi after loading the vegetable bags at vegetable wholesale market at Belagavi in Bolero Camper Goods Vehicle bearing No. KA-25-D-5957 (the ‘offending vehicle’) boarded the vehicle to unload the same at Managutti vegetable market. When they were plying on NH-4 New Vantamuri-Belagavi road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the accident in question had occurred resulting in causing fatal injuries to Laxman, who succumbed to those injuries. Channappa also sustained injuries. Dependents of the deceased and also the injured claimant filed separate claim petitions seeking compensation.

4. Upon service of notice respondents No.1 and 2, owner and insurer respectively, appeared and filed their separate statement of objection. Owner of the offending vehicle denied the averments made in the claim petition, however contended that the vehicle is having insurance and the insurer would be liable to indemnify the claimants.

Hence he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2-insurer denied the allegations in the claim petition as regards negligence, the manner in which the accident had occurred, avocation and earning of the deceased and the injured respectively. It further stated that the deceased and injured were traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers and therefore there is a violation of the policy condition. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for consideration and proceeded for common trial. Wife of the deceased and the injured are examined as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. Official of the insurer is examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3.

7. The Tribunal analyzing the pleadings and evidence on record partly allowed M.V.C. No. 2713/2016 awarding compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal allowed M.V.C. No. 2714/2016 awarding global compensation of Rs.7,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal saddled liability on the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased and the injured were gratuitous passengers. The claimants in both the appeals are challened the saddling of liability on the owner and also seeking for enhancement of compensation.

8. We have heard arguments of Sri Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Sri Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for the insurer. Owner of the offending vehicle though served remained absent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording the find