The liability of the insurer in a motor vehicle accident case is determined based on the negligence of the driver and the status of the deceased as a third party rather than a gratuitous passenger.

1. This judgment disposes of First Appeal filed by the insurer and the X-Objection preferred by original claimants (respondents no. 1 to 7). Parties shall be hereinafter referred to as per their status in first appeal.

2. Appellant is the insurer of TATA chasis bearing temporary registration No. MH-12/ 623 which was involved in the accident. It was owned by respondent no. 9. Respondent no. 1 is the widow of deceased Bhagwan Kharde; respondents no. 2 to 6 are the children of the deceased and respondent no. 7 is the mother of the deceased. Respondent no. 10 is also joined as party-respondent to the claim petition. As per her case, she was the first wife of the deceased. The Award has been passed for Rs. 1,82,500/- in favour of respondents no. 1 to 7 and respondent no. 10. The liability to pay the amount of the Award has been fastened jointly and severally upon the appellant-insurer and respondent no. 8 Prithvi, driver of the TATA Chasis involved in the accident.

3. On 3.7.1997 at about 02.30 pm, deceased Bhagwan, wanting to return home as soon as possible in order to see his sick mother, was waiting for ST Bus to arrive at the spot where he was standing. This spot was on Jalna-Deulgaonraja Road. The ST Bus did not arrive, but one TATA chassis, the vehicle involved in the accident, did come from jalna side. Deceased Bhagwan raised his hand and stopped the TATA chassis. Deceased requested the driver of the TATA chasis to give him lift and started boarding the chasis. But, the driver, it appears, refused to oblige the deceased. Not only this, the driver of TATA chasis suddenly accelerated the speed of the vehicle and the deceased lost his balance and fell off the chasis. Even the truck driver lost control over the steering wheel and the chasis dashed against a road side tree situated nearby. In this accident, deceased Bhagwan sustained grievous injuries. It is claimed by respondents no. 1 to 7 that deceased Bhagwan at the time of accident was 35 years old and earned handsomely, about Rs. 4000-5000 per month from his agriculture and allied activities including dairy business. The claimants submitted that they were dependents upon income of the deceased and, therefore, they filed claim petition for compensating their loss. Respondent no. 10 was also later on allowed to be added to the claim petition as, according to her, she was the first wife of the deceased and, therefore, interested in receiving the compensation. As a result of such intervention, respondent no. 10 withdrew the claim petition filed by her at Jalna and presented her claim in this matter.

4. The claim petition was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the driver of the TATA chais did not hold valid driving licence at the relevant time to drive heavy motor vehicle and he held driving licence only to drive light motor vehicle. According to it, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, driver and owner of the TATA chasis truck were responsible to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. On merits, the Tribunal rejected such opposition of the appellant and found that it was along with the driver of the truck, liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as well as the first wife of the deceased on account of loss they suffered owing to the death of Bhagwan. Accordingly, by the Award dated 1st August 2005, the claim petition was partly allowed. Not being satisfied with the same, the insurer is before this Court in the appeal. Respondents no. 1 to 7 are also not satisfied with the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal and they have preferred cross-objection claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- upon modification of the Award.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 7/cross-objectors. Shri Khapre submits that respondent no. 7 Smt Kalabai, mother of the