JUDGMENT :

1. These nine appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 16.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vyara at Surat in M.A.C.P. Nos.401/2001, 402/2001, 403/2001, 404/2001, 405/2001, 406/2001, 408/2001, 833/2001 and 834/2001 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the respective claim petitions.

2. Short facts of the present appeals are that on 10.05.2001, the injured persons had gone to Navasari Krishi Vidyalaya in a jeep hired by them for information and training of modern agriculture and while returning from there, due to the negligent driving of opponent no.1 – driver of the jeep, the jeep over turned and the occupants got injuries, which resulted into the permanent partial disablement and death.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has passed the award without considering the material evidence on record. He has submitted that the claimant has to prove the pleadings and cannot go beyond the pleadings and as per the principle of law decided by the Higher Courts that without pleading, the evidence cannot be considered, however, the Tribunal has erred by not following the said principle of law and passed the impugned award. He has submitted that the passengers including the claimants were gratuitous passengers and the claimants have hired the jeep. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the claimant had categorically admitted in the pleading about hiring the jeep to go to Navsari. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by considering that additional premium was paid so Insurance Company can be held liable though the question was breach of condition of policy wherein the vehicle was not to be used for hire and reward, however, they have not disputed the quantum. He has submitted that the present appeals may be allowed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and argued that there was no error committed by the Tribunal in passing the award holding the liability of the present appellant – Insurance Company. They submitted that in any case, if the present appellant would be exonerated from the liability of paying the compensation, at the first instance, the appellant should satisfy the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and, thereafter, may recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. Ultimately, it was requested by learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents to dismiss the appeals.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel of the respective parties and averments made in all the appeals. It appears from the record that the appellant – Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground that all the claimants of the claim petitions were travelling in a jeep car as passengers on hire and reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for any compensation. Considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, (2017) 4 SCC 796, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ashwinkumar P. Upadhyay and others, 2019) Law Suit (Gujarat) 383 = 2020 (2) G.L.H. 7 and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chavda Gomatben Galabhai and others, 2020 Law Suit (Gujarat) 137, the impugned judgment and award is required to be quashed and set aside to the extent that the liability cannot be fastened upon the present appellant.

6. In the case of Manuara Khatun (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs no.13, 17 and 18 as under:-