( 1 ) THIS Appeal arises out of a common judgment rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot on 22-2-1985 deciding several claim petitions and rendering Awards in those claim petitions. The instant appeal arises out of Claim Petition No. 616 of 1982.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this Appeal shortly are as under : an accident took place on 7-9-1982 at about 3. 45 p. m. , on Rajkot - Morbi state Highway near village Bedi. A Public Carrier No. GTX 8202 driven by the first opponent before the Tribunal with some inmates in it was moving on the road. While it was passing over the bridge near village Bedi it went off the road due to the fact that the driver lost control over it and the vehicle plunged into river bed by breaking the side railings of the bridge. The deceased was inmate in the vehicle. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle along with his goods. He had paid fare to the driver of the vehicle. In the accident he sustained injuries and ultimately died. Claim petition No. 616 of 1982 was filed by his legal representatives claiming compensation. The passer-by was also thrown off. Various persons sustained injuries and 7 of them died. Claim petitions were filed on behalf of legal representatives of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle and also by the legal representatives of the passer-by who was thrown and died. It is said that in the instant case the passer-by was not a passenger in the vehicle. Injured claimants also filed several claim petitions. It was a case that the passengers in the vehicle were transporting their goods to their villages. The accident was alleged to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver.

( 3 ) THE present Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim petition denying rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. It was also pleaded that the inmates in the vehicle were passengers, including the deceased, on payment of charges hence they are not entitled to any claim. It was further pleaded that the vehicle in question was used in violation of conditions of the policy and permit hence also no claim can be sustained. The last plea was that the vehicle was not being driven by the driver hence also the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal found that the deceased was a passenger on payment of charges and was carrying his goods in the vehicle hence the Insurance Company within the ambit of Insurance policy and permit is liable to pay compensation. With this finding the claim petition was decreed for Rs. 27,600. 00 only.

( 5 ) IN this Appeal, there are three respondents. The respondent No. 1 is claimant, the respondent No. 2 was the driver who was subsequently deleted, the respondent No. 3 is the owner of the vehicle. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 despite sufficient service of notice of this Appeal. Shri Jayant Patel, learned Advocate appeared and made a statement that he was appearing for the claimant, but after his death he did not receive any vakalatnama from the legal representatives of the deceased claimant. As such he is not appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. However, Shri P. J. Kanabar on behalf of Shri P. M. Thakkar states that he is representing the claimant-respondent No. 1 and also his legal representatives respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4. As such Shri R. H. Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri P. J. Kanabar have been heard.

( 6 ) THE contention of Shri Mehta has been that since the goods vehicle was used in contravention of the conditions laid down in the Insurance policy, the Insurance Company-appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The relevant terms upon which Shri Mehta placed reliance have been quoted in para 3 of the Memo of Appeal, which reads as under :"limitation as to use of the vehicle in the policy. ""use only for a public carriers permit within the meaning of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. "the Policy does not cover - (1) U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document