ORDER :

1. Identical issues are raised in all the appeals and referred by the Division Bench, hence all the appeals were heard together and are dealt with by this common judgment and order.

2. The facts as stated in First Appeal No. 3907 of 2017 are made basis of this judgment and order.

2.1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) arises out of judgment and award dated 28.07.2017 whereby learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim petition of the appellants. The present appeal is filed by the legal heirs of deceased Laxmanbhai Thakore who succumbed to injuries in motor accident which took place on 24.03.2003. As per the record, deceased Laxmanbhai Thakore was driving the Ambulance bearing registration no. GJ-12-T-1920 from Gandhidham to Ahmedabad, during the course of employment, with Kandla Dock Labour Board. As per the facts which can be culled out from the record, there were three other occupants i.e. one second driver also an employee of the Kandla Dock Labour Board, one patient and one person accompanying along with the patient, out of them, three succumbed to the said injuries. Appellants-original claimants filed Claim Petition under Section 163 A of the Act which was numbered as MACP No. 300 of 2003, which came to be converted into Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act.

2.2. It was the case of the appellants-original claimants before the Tribunal that vide policy at Exh.66, additional premium of Rs. 30/- vide Indian Motor Tariff Endorsement No. 19 was paid by the insured to the insurer towards the legal liability for paid Drivers/Workman No. 2. It was therefore, case of the appellant that liability of the Insurer was extended being contractual liability and not restricted to statutory liability or act only liability. It was thus contended by the appellants that irrespective of negligence of the deceased, the Insurer would be liable to pay the entire compensation to the appellants-original claimants as payable under Section 166 of the Act. By the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2017, the Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition mainly relying upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Gulam Rasool Rahman Malek vs. GSRTC, 2015 ACJ 20. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased driver of the Ambulance was found to be solely negligent and therefore, appellants are held not entitled to any compensation under the Act. The said judgment and award is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal under Section 173 of the Act.

2.3. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.06.2018, has referred this matter to the Larger Bench and has framed the following question to be examined and answered by this Bench, which reads as under:

Whether the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya and Another (supra) laid down correct law by holding that in view of insured paying additional premium for the liability of the paid driver, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act computed upon the death or injury caused to the driver out of an accident which arises solely on account of driver’s own negligence?

3. Heard Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned counsel along with Mr. Hemal Shah, learned counsel for the original claimants-appellants, Mr. Maulik Shelat, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati and Dr. Rushang Mehta, learned counsels for the insurance Companies and Mr. Yogi Gadhiya, learned counsel appearing for the Kandla Dock Labour Board in all these appeals.

4. Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising in the appeals and has also relied upon the relevant evidence on record and has contended as under:

4.1. It was submitted by Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellants that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya and Another vs. Yakubkhan Abdulkhan Kherwaji and