The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the coverage of passengers in goods carriages and the liability of insurers and vehicle owners in compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/insurer impugns the judgment and award dated 03/09/2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna [for short ‘the Tribunal’], in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.42/2003 in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].

2. The respondent nos.1 to 3 [original claimants] had approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, thereby raising the claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of Tempo bearing registration No. MH-06-6184, towards accidental death of Vijay Thavra Chavan in an accident dated 18/05/2003. The contention of the claimants is that, the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident. They were dependent on his income. On the date of accident, the deceased was travelling in the offending Tempo, which slipped into a ditch owing to rash and negligent driving of tempo driver. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month from his job as a Cleaner. The respondent no.4 being owner and appellant being an insurer [original respondent nos.1 and 2 in claim petition] are liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Act.

3. The claim petition was contested on behalf of the respondents. The respondent no.4/owner of the vehicle admitted the accidental death of the deceased, but denied averments regarding occupation and income. The appellant/insurer also filed its written statement. Although, the accident and consequential death is not disputed, the liability to pay the compensation has been disowned on the ground that, the deceased was travelling in goods carriage along with 60 other persons. The vehicle was predominately used for carriage of passengers, though it has been registered as goods carriage. The risk of the deceased was not covered either under statutory provisions requiring compulsory insurance or by any other mode.

4. The Tribunal, after framing of the issues at Exhibit-26, recorded the evidence. The respondent no.1/claimant relied upon his evidence at Exhibit – 29. The respondent no.4/ owner of the vehicle examined himself at Exhibit-32 as a witness on behalf of the claimants. The FIR, spot panchanama and insurance policy filed along with the list at Exhibit – 4 were tendered in evidence and relied by the parties. The Tribunal after hearing arguments advanced, passed the judgment and award dated 03/09/2004 holding that, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application to the claimants.

5. The insurer impugns said award in appellate jurisdiction of this court u/s 173 of the M.V. Act 1988. The appeal has been admitted on 16/12/2004. The notices of admission of appeal were issued to the respondents. The record shows that, notices of respondent nos.1 to 3/original claimants returned unserved. Since the appellant/insurer failed to take further steps, the appeal suffered dismissal as against respondent nos.1 to 3 for want of prosecution vide order dated 14/02/2006 passed by the learned Register [Judicial] of this Court. However, the notice issued to respondent no.4/owner of the vehicle was duly served but he failed to cause his appearance in this appeal.

6. Mr. Deshmukh, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/insurer would submit that, in view of dismissal of appeal against the original claimants, he would not urge to pass any adverse order against the original claimants. However, he would limit his argument as against the insured /owner of the vehicle. He would submit that, the appellant/insurer had advanced two folds submissions before the Tribunal. Firstly, the vehicle in question is registered and insured as goods carriage, so also brought on road under good carriage permit and could not have been used for carrying of the passengers. The record indicates that, the vehicle was predominantly used for carriage of