The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, as per the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants/original respondent no.2-Insurer approaches this Court under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby impugning the common judgment dated 5th July, 2003 in MACP No.261 of 1996, 51 of 1997 and 336 of 1997. (For the sake of brevity, Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status).

2. Respondents no.1/original claimants in respective claim petitions had approached the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereby raising claim for compensation towards injuries suffered in motor vehicular accident dated 23.10.1996. The claimants contend that, on the fateful day, they were traveling in a Matador bearing registration No.MH-22/355 from village Charthana to village Waghi for attending the Bazar. Driver of Matador lost his control over the vehicle. Resultantly, it toppled in the vicinity of village Pimpri (khurd). The claimants who were occupying seat in the matador suffered severe injuries. According to the claimants, driver of the Matador was negligent. The offending Matador was owned by respondent no.1. It was driven by respondent no.2 (Now deleted) and insured with respondent no.3 (present appellant). As such, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. The Claim was contested by the appellant-insurer by filing written statement on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claimants recorded respective evidence and relied upon the police papers. Insurance company recorded evidence of Mr. Takalkar, Branch Manager of the company, who placed on record copy of the insurance policy. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the claim petition and directed respondent nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay compensation to the claimants as quantified in respective claims. Aggrieved by the common decision of the Tribunal, insurer filed present group of appeals.

4. Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly, offending vehicle is registered and insured as a ‘good carriage’ and not supposed to carry any passenger. However, as discernible from the contents of the FIR, spot panchnama, vehicle was predominantly used for carrying passengers. As many as 31 passengers were occupying the seat in offending Matador at the time of accident and suffered injuries. The group of 15 appeals arising from the same accident is before this Court. He would further invite attention of this Court to the RTO particulars and copy of the insurance policy, which is admitted in evidence to contend that permitted sitting capacity of the vehicle is only two including the driver and class of the Motor vehicle is specified as LCV, D.Van (Light Commercial Vehicle Delivery Van). He would therefore submit that the Tribunal failed in grave error of law while holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Toshnival appearing for respondent no.1 vehemently submits that all the persons occupying seat in the vehicle at the time of the accident had loaded goods of the business and proceeding to attend the Bazar at village Waghi. There is no prohibition for transportation of owner of goods in the goods carriage. The amendment of 1994 in section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act mandates statutory cover for owner of the goods, being carried in the goods carriage. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the aforesaid aspects and passed an award holding the owner of the offending vehicle and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. Although, the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.2) has been served with the notice of the appeal, failed to cause his appearance.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced, the question that falls for consideration in the present appeals is as to “whether the claimants were travelling in goods carriage as a ‘gratuitous passenger’ or they would fall within the meaning of ‘owner of goods’ occupying seat i