JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---All these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 23-1-1987 in M.A.C. Petitions Nos. 1 to 19, 39 and 40 of 1983 on the file of the Member, M.A.C.T., Nasik. Common arguments were heard on these three appeals and all these three appeals arise out of one and the same accident and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2.In the first appeal, claimants had filed Claim Petition No. 20 of 1983, the second appeal arises out of the Claim Petition No. 10 of 1983 and the third appeal arises from the Claim Petition No. 8 of 1983. All these claim petitions arise out of an accident that took place on 6-6-1982 at about 8.15 p.m. The case of the claimants is that on 6-6-1982 about 22 persons were travelling in Lorry MWN 56 along with their goods viz., rice bags from Surgana to Alangun; the truck belongs to the first appellant and the second appellant was the driver of the truck at the relevant time. It is the case of the claimant that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result, it turtled. As a result of the accident all the claimants sustained injuries caused to them. One injured Pandu Balu Gavit died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The 21 injured persons and the heirs of the one deceased person filed 22 claim applications before the Court below claiming various sums of money as compensation. The appellants filed the written statement contesting the claim. They denied the allegation that there was contract for transporting the goods in the lorry. The owner also stated that the driver respondent No. 2 had not been engaged by him to drive the lorry on that particular day. The insurance company-respondent No. 3 in the trial Court disputed its liability for the compensation amount. It was urged by the insurance company that the claimants being passengers in a goods vehicle are not entitled to claim compensation from the insurance company.

3.The learned trial Court framed appropriate issues. Both the parties adduced their evidence. After recording evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It also recorded a finding that all the injured claimants had sustained injuries as a result of the accident. It recorded a finding that those persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle are not entitled to get compensation from the insurance company. It held that the owner of the vehicle and driver are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, all the 22 claim petitions came to be allowed only against the appellants. The claim was rejected against insurance company.

4.Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the owner and the driver have filed these three appeals.

5.The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the evidence led by both the parties in the Court below and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the claim against the insurance company and making only the appellants to pay compensation to the various claimants. It was argued that on the basis of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, it was a case of the owners of the goods travelling in the lorry and not as a passengers and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The learned Counsel for the claimants, who are respondents in these appeals, supported this argument and contended that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in all the cases. But the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company while supporting the impugned judgment about rejecting the claim against the insurance company, contended that it was not a case of owners of goods travelling in the lorry but it is a case of passengers being carried in the lorry for hire and therefore, the insurance company has been rightly held to be not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document