ORDER :

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxi), 3rd (Ad-hoc) Additional District Court, Patan on 19th August, 2015 in MACP No. 376 of 2010.

2. The short facts leading to the present case are as under:-

3. The original claimants have preferred a claim petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act against the present appellant and other respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of untimely death wherein, Dashrathbhai Jethabhai was expired. As per case of the original claimant on 8th November, 2010, at about 11.30 a.m. deceased Dashrathbhai Jethabhai, was a passer by, who entered the truck to douse the fire and sustained burn injuries which was occurred due to touch live electric wire with the grass loaded in the truck and died on the sport. The age of the deceased was 42 years. He was the only earning members in the family and by doing labour works, he was earning Rs.3300/ - per month. The original claimants spent huge amount in funeral ceremonies, and in all accounts, they have requested to pass an award of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of compensation. After issuing notice to the respondents, original respondent No.1 filed his written statement vide Exh. 17 denying the contents of the petition and further contended that insurance was issued by the respondent No.2 as well as the liability and therefore, name of the respondent No. 1 should be deleted and necessary order can be passed against the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 i.e. present appellant appeared before the tribunal and filed his written statement vide Exh. 23 contending that driver of the truck was not holding valid driving license at the time of occurring the accident, and therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. That, no permission for goods vehicle was granted to the truck involved in the accident.

4. From the original claimant- Ranguben Dashrathbhai Raval was examined vide Exh. 18 as well as witness Dr. Babubhai Nathubhai Chaudhary vide Exh. 20 and certain documents were produced.

5. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an award by partly allowing the petition directing the respondent- Company to pay compensation of Rs. 3,45,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date i.e. 20th April, 2010 holding the liability of the respondent jointly and severally by the judgement and award dated 19th August, 2015. Hence, this Appeal.

6. Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to legal provision as the accident was occurred due to touching of the live electric wire to the grass and deceased being passer by, entered the truck to douse the fire and sustained burn injuries and succumbed to those injuries. That, truck was stationary truck and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. Hence, Insurance Company may not be held liable to pay the compensation. That, if any liability was there, electricity company would be liable to pay compensation. That, before the tribunal, arguments advanced and judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant rendered in case of Shankarbhai Motibhai Prajapati and another Vs. Ishwarbhai Gangarambhai and others reported in 2014 ACJ 138 are not considered properly. It is further submitted that tribunal failed to consider the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgement and wrongly held liability of paying compensation. It was further submitted that the Insurance Policy was issued in favour of Babakhan Mahebubkhan Pathan and at the relevant point of time, he was registered owner as per record of the R.C.Book. That, he was not joined as party-respondent by the claimant, and therefore, also present appellant was not held liable to pay compensation. In support of his arguments, le