M.D. SHAH, J.

1. These appeals are filed against the common judgment and award dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), 5th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 759 of 1999, 760 of 1999, 761 of 1999, 762 of 1999, 763 of 1999, 809 of 1999, 1280 of 2000, 1281 of 2000 and 1283 of 2000. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are such that the claimants were travelling as owners of goods in Matador No. GJ 1V 3875 on 20.2.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. and when the Matador reached near Vithalvav, the driver of the Matador was driving it in hectic speed, rashly and negligently as a result of which the matador was overturned and all the applicants sustained serious injuries of fracture, etc. likely to result in permanent disabilities. Therefore, all the claimants filed the above stated claim petitions, which were decided by the above mentioned common judgment and award. It is held by the Tribunal that claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle for attending the marriage ceremony and they are gratuitous passengers.

2. Heard learned advocate for the appellants. Learned advocate took this Court through the evidence of the deposition of the claimant-Jivabhai Punjabhai. It transpires from the evidence of this witness that 30 passengers were travelling in the said goods vehicle and they were going for attending marriage ceremony. He placed reliance on the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Others etc., (2012) 4 SCALE 111, more particularly, on paragraphs 10 to 13.

3. Heard learned advocate for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment and the case relied upon by learned advocate.

4. Paragraphs 10 to 13 of the judgment of Savitri Devi (supra) reads as under:

10. The specific case of the claimants was that the barat was being taken in the said open truck on 12.11.1996 when the accident had taken place. Thus, according to us, it clearly violates the terms and conditions of the policy.

11. Dealing with similar circumstance, this Court has held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 243 and others" as under:-

8....

It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.

9. The same view was reiterated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 517; Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 667 and also in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 697.

10. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. This Appeal is allowed. We, however, make it clear that the claimants-respondents will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation granted in their favour by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.

12. Similar view has been reiterated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattani and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 75, titled as "National Insurance Company Limited versus Rattani and others", paragraph 14 and 15 of which are reproduced hereunder:-

14. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the fa