The payment of additional premium by the owner extends the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Insurance Company as appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 29.09.2007, by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.620 of 1994.

2. The facts in brief are:

2.1 That the accident took place on 24.07.1993. The original claimants filed claim petition for the death of Mahendrasinh Bhagwansinh Chavda, who was driving the Jeep No.GJ–02–T–3312 along with other passengers. It was case of the original claimants that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of owner of the jeep as the jeep was not kept in a motorable condition. It was their case that, on several occasions, the driver (the deceased) had complained to the owner in relation to maintenance of jeep and required to change the various parts of the vehicle to keep it motorable. It was further their case that the owner was negligent and failed in keeping the vehicle in a motorable condition because of which the accident took place. For the said accident, the original claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 4,65,482/- with interest and proportionate cost.

2.2 The FIR was lodged by Shri Santoshsing Virendrasing, at Exh.–51, who was one of the passenger in a jeep, and had narrated the incident. It was stated by Santoshsing that the driver lost control over the steering because of which, the jeep turned turtled. The panchnama of scene of accident at Exh.–52 is also on record.

2.3 The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record and after hearing the parties awarded total compensation of Rs.2,52,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of petition till its realization.

For negligence, the Tribunal held that because of negligence on the part of jeep owner, the deceased (driver of jeep) sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

2.4 Aggrieved, by the judgment and award dated 29.09.2007, present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that the driver himself was negligent for the accident in the present case, and therefore, the claimants were not entitled for any compensation.

3. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat for the appellant–Insurance Company. Though served, none appeared for the respondents (original claimants).

4. Appearing for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Shelat contended that the Tribunal is in error in holding that the owner was negligent to keep the vehicle for motorable use because of which the accident occurred. In support of his submission, referring to the FIR, he contended that there is nothing on record except bare version of the claimants that the jeep was not kept in a good condition. The panchnama as well as other evidence on record does not refer to the condition of the jeep, and therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal merely on the version of the claimants is beyond the evidence on record.

4.1 Be that as it may, he fairly submitted that even if the finding recorded by the Tribunal is held to be erroneous and even if the owner of the jeep is not held to be negligent for occurrence of the accident, the fact of additional premium paid by the owner of the jeep to cover the risk of driver can not be ignored. He further submitted that this issue is now covered by the recent decision of this Court (full bench decision) in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) and others Vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board and another reported in 2022(1) GLR 440. In the said decision of this Court, it has been held as under:

“12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya (supra) has observed thus:

“21. Then comes the question of liability of the United India Insurance Co., so far as truck driver is concerned. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. that the dependents of deceased truck driver cannot get compensation from the Insuranc