JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal involves common question of law, though factual aspects may be somewhat different. To appreciate the sole grounds pressed in service by the appellant – Insurance Company, the following brief facts may be sufficient.

2. The First Appeals arising out of the same common judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 04.03.2005 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petitions No.289/1997, 290/1997, 291/1997, 292/1997, 294/1997, 301/1997, 302/1997 and 811/1997 came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2021 and, therefore, the present appeal is also disposed of.

2.1 On 11.03.1997, a Truck bearing registration No.GJ-13-T- 5862 driven by respondent No.3 - original opponent No.2 owned by respondent No.2 – original opponent No.1 and insured by opponent No.3 – National Insurance Company Limited in the group of claim petitions, met with an accident. There were several persons – claimants sitting in the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-13-T-5862 who received serious injuries. This accident gave rise to eight claim petitions. Four were fatal cases pursued by the heirs of the deceased passengers and four were injury cases, where claim petitions were field by the injured themselves.

3. Heard Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Ms.Amrita Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – original claimants.

4. Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has submitted that the atleast seventeen persons were travelling in the goods vehicle as passengers as owners of the goods was carrying cumin seeds in the Truck and 18 to 20 person cannot travel as owners of goods in the mini truck having gross weight of 6900 kilograms and the vehicle was used for carriage of unauthorized passenger is in violation of terms of policy. He has also submitted that as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the gross weight of vehicle does not exceed 7500 kilograms is classified as a light motor vehicle and as per Rule 122 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the total number of persons who can be carried in a light motor vehicle cannot exceed three. He has submitted that in the present case there were seventeen persons travelling the vehicle and the vehicle was used for carriage of passengers whose risk is not covered under the policy. He has submitted that the vehicle was used for carriage of passengers and the deceased were travelling as unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle whose risk is not covered under the policy. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and since the deceased survived by parents, wife and two children, the Tribunal ought not to have deviated from the standard deduction of 1/3rd. He has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively as conventional amount. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not found the gratuitous passengers and if they are considered to be gratuitous passengers, then, the risk is not covered under Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as far as the Tribunal found gratuitous passenger then risk is not statutorily covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. While referring to the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No.2121 of 2008 dated 18.11.2013, he has submitted that pay and recovery order cannot be passed. He has referred to the cross-examination of Ratilal – eye witness and submitted that 18 to 20 passengers were sitting in the back side of the truck. He has submitted that Article 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers risk of the owner of the goods and not owners of the goods. He has submitted that if the Tribunal has not discussed any evidence and decided that they all are owners of the goods. He has also submitted that if the claimant or deceased is not a party whos