Point in Issue :
Whether passengers who were travelling in goods vehicle prior to amendment made in the Act on 01.07.1989, are entitled to claim compensation from Insurance Company.

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for learned Advocate Mr. Rajni H. Mehta for appellant insurance company and learned Advocate Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Advocate Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate Mr. A.J. Shastri, Mr. Kamdar etc. for respective respondents in these appeals.

2. In this group of appeals, appellant insurance company is challenging award made by different claims Tribunals in different claim petitions as mentioned in respective memo of appeal.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh appearing for appellant insurance company has raised contention that in respect of persons those who were travelling in goods vehicle prior to 1.7.1989 means prior to Amendment made in MV Act, insurance company is not liable to pay amount of compensation in case of negligence of driver of goods vehicle as risk of such passenger is not covered in insurance policy issued by insurance company. He also submitted that in case if passenger travelled in goods vehicle prior to amendment with owner of goods or as authorized representative, then also, their risk is not covered under insurance policy issued by insurance company. He submits that amendment made in section 147 on 14th November, 1994 and as per said amendment, ‘any person’ includes owner of goods and authorized representative of owner but prior to that risk of such persons those who traveled in goods vehicle even as owner of goods/representative of owner of goods, were not covered and such specific contention was raised by appellant before claims Tribunal but same have not been properly considered by respective claims Tribunal and claims Tribunal decided that even in case, prior to amendment made in MV Act, if any person traveled in goods vehicle as owner of goods, then also risk of such person is covered under policy of insurance and insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimants. He submits that this finding of claims Tribunal is contrary to law. He relied upon decision of this Court dated 14.3.2008 in First Appeal No. 924 of 1989, decision of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 888 of 1986 decided on 22.2.2000 in case of New Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagdishchandra Kanchanlal Parikh reported in 2001 (1) GLR 634. He also relied upon decision of larger bench of Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Others and submitted that these appeals are required to be allowed by exonerating appellant insurance company from liability to pay compensation to claimants.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah, Ms. Mandavia, Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi for respective respondents claimants jointly submitted that claims Tribunal have not committed any error in passing award in favour of claimants by directing appellant insurance company to pay compensation to claimants and, therefore, these appeals are required to be dismissed.

5. As regards First Appeal No. 69 of 1991 (MACP No. 711/84) and First Appeal No. 70 of 1991 (MACP No. 842/84), three claim petitions arose namely MACP No. 711, 718 and 842 of 1984 when driver lost control, went off the road and turned turtle in the ditch and causing fatal injury to Javarbhai Bhanabhai whose heirs filed MACP No. 718/1984.

Heirs of deceased Punabhai Popatbhai filed claim Petition No. 711/84 and claimants (claim Petition No. 718/84) were traveling with their goods in truck No. GTW 3364 driven by Gordhanbhai Bachubhai Koli, respondent No. 4 in FA No. 69/91 (MACP No. 711/84) and respondent No. 2 in FA No. 70/1991 (MACP No. 718/84) owned by Virjibhai Bhikhabhai, who could not be served as he died and his heirs shifted to other unknown place.

Appellant insurance company is not liable in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ved vati, AIR 2007 SC 1334. In said appeals, though served, respondents have not filed any appearance.

6. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates for respective parties