The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147 and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in the case of gratuitous passengers involved in a motor accident.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present group of appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited against the common judgment and award dated 07.08.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) 9th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 1400 of 1995, 12 of 1996, 72 of 1996 and 70 of 1996 arising from one and same accident. The Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petitions of the original claimants.

2. Since present group of appeal arising from one and same accident and also from the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, all these appeals are decided by this common judgment and order.

3. The short facts giving rise to present appeals are that the claimants were travelling in Matador bearing registration No. GJ-13-T-5438 and the driver has driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed and lost control over the steering, due to which, the accident took place on 29.12.1995 at about 5.00 p.m. from Saat Hanuman Temple to Pir Dargah on Kuvadva National Highway. In the said accident, the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 1400 of 1995 and claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 72 of 1996 sustained injuries and the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 12 of 1995 and M.A.C.P. No. 70 of 1996 sustained fatal injuries. Hence, the claimants and legal heirs of the deceased have preferred the said claim petitions respectively.

3.1 The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, partly allowed the present claim petitions.

4. Being aggrieved by the said claim petitions, the present appeals preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Heard Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants.

6. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle is used to carry the passengers and, therefore, the deceased and the injured were gratuitous passengers and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of the amount of compensation. He has submitted that there is a breach of condition of the policy and, therefore, the liability cannot be fasten upon the Insurance Company.

6.1 Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is against the evidence on record and merits of the case. He has submitted that there was a clear violation of the condition of the Insurance Policy as the vehicle was used for hire. He has submitted that the deceased and the injured were travelling in the goods vehicle and, therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for compensation and ought to have been exonerated. He has submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed.

6.2 In support of his arguments, Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(1) United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lilaben W/o Deceased Bhikhabhai Premjibhai Kathirya, First Appeal No. 2121 of 2008 dated 18.11.2013 by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya).

(2) The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sureshkumar Shakralal Darji, First Appeal No. 4601 of 2007 to First Appeal No. 4602 of 2007 dated 15.06.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Karia).

(3) Shivaraj vs. Rajendra, (2018) 10 SCC 432.

(4) United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Janubhai Radvabhai Vasava, First Appeal No. 1975 of 2005 and allied appeals dated 10.05.2019 by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Karia).

(5) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Latifsha Bhachalsha Shaikh, First Appeal Nos. 2911 of 2010 to 2913 of 2010 dated 08.12.2021 by this Court.

7. Ms. Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants has supported the impugned judgment and award and has submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error of