The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable to cover the risk of passengers traveling in a goods carriage vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. This First Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘the Act’) is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (in short ‘the Insurance Company’) questioning correctness of the common judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed by the MACT (Auxi.), Anand in MACP No. 1 of 2016 with MACP No. 2 of 2006. This Appeal essentially challenges judgment and award passed in MACP No. 2 of 2006 which is partly allowed holding that Insurance Company is vicariously liable to pay compensation in tune of Rs. 6,39,400/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing claim petition till realization with proportionate costs to original claimants.

2. Facts leading to filing of this Appeal can be pithily stated as under.

3. On 19.01.2006, deceased Ghanshyambhai Siroya along with Nayankumar Siroya were travelling in Utility Van bearing No. GJ-1-AT-4938 (in short ‘Utility Van’). They were travelling from Rajkot to Tarapur. It is alleged that driver of the Utility Van was driving in rash, negligent and excessive speed and during such driving, he lost control over steering which resulted into capsized of the Utility Van. Deceased Ghanshayambhai traveling in Utility Van was seriously injured and succumbed to injury on the spot. This accident has been recorded with the police and complaint is registered against driver of the Utility Van.

3.1. On the background of above facts of road accident, heirs and legal representative of deceased preferred claim petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act being MACP No. 2 of 2006 before the learned Tribunal inter-alia claiming that at the time of road accident, deceased Ghanshayambhai was hale and hearty and was doing agriculture as well as doing business of furniture and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. Upon demise of Ghanshaymbhai, claimants are facing financial crunch and have lost future income as well as love and affection of the deceased. The claim was made to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest and costs, jointly and severally from the driver, owner and Insurance company of the Utility Van.

4. After assessing evidence on record, produced by the claimants, learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the claimants have made out case. The learned Tribunal assessed income of Rs. 3,200/- after deducing personal expenses and taking age of the deceased as 35 years relying on PM Note, applied multiplier of 16 and assessed future loss of income at Rs. 6,14,400/-. Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection, whereas Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the claimants were granted compensation of Rs. 6,39,400/-. This award has been challenged by way of this Appeal.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the original claimants. None remain present for other respondents.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval has taken this Court through oral evidence of the petitioner produced on record at Exh.19 to submit that even according to chief examination of the claimant, deceased-Ghanshaymbhai was travelling in Utility Van in capacity of passenger. He would submit that it is undeniable aspect that Utility Van was goods carriage vehicle. He would further submit that risk of persons travelling in goods carriage vehicle is not covered in the policy. Taking this Court through Exh.Mark-34/1, leaf of policy of vehicle, he would submit that vehicle in which deceased Ghanshayambhai was travelling was goods carriage commercial vehicle. Drawing attention of this Court to the limitation stated in the leaf of the policy, he would submit that vehicle was used for carrying goods within the meaning of M.V. Act. He would submit that column which indicates premium charged by the Insurance Company does not cover any risk of passenger travelling in the goods carriage vehicle. In that circumstances, he would submit that since deceased Ghanshyambhai was