Insurance companies are not liable for injuries to unauthorized passengers traveling in goods vehicles, as per amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant-original opponent No.2 – Insurance Company against the respondent No. 1 & 2- original claimants and the respondent no.3 - original opponent No. 1 under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ,(‘The Act’, for short) against the judgment and award passed by learned M.A.C.Tribunal (Main), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 247 of 1998 on 23.06.2011. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the opponents as they stood in the original petition for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-

2.1] That on 10th January, 1997, Chandulal Lakhmanbhai, son of the claimants had gone for his work as a diamond polisher and was to return with one Maund of wheat in the evening and sat in rickshaw No. GJ-11-5517 with wheat and paid a fare of Rs.30/- for the same. That the rickshaw was driven by the opponent No. 1 in full speed and in a negligent manner and when the rickshaw reached at Bagasra public road near Sobha Vadla village, the opponent No. 1 lost control over rickshaw and it turned turtle on the side and Chandulal Lakhmanbhai was crushed under the goods and the rickshaw and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The offence was registered at Visavadar Police Station I-C.R.No.-2 of 1997.

2.2]The claimants who are the parents of the deceased Chandulal Lakhmanbhai have filed the claim petition mainly stating that the deceased was 20 years at the time of accident and was hale and hearty and he was a skilled worker and doing diamond polishing and was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m.. That he was the sole bread earner of the family and the claimants have suffered a huge loss and have claimed an amount of Rs.5,22,000/- from all opponents jointly and severally under all available heads. The opponent No. 2 is the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident.

3. The notices were duly served to the opponents and the opponent No. 1 appeared but did not file any written statement and the opponent No. 2 appeared and filed its written statement at Exh:21 mainly denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and have stated that that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the opponent No. 1 and hence the opponent-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to compensate the claimants.

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record found the opponent No. 1 negligent for the occurrence of the accident and considering the other evidence submitted by the claimants ordered the opponent to pay an amount of Rs.2,31,000/- to the claimants jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the application till realization.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the opponent No.2-Insurance Company has filed the present first appeal mainly stating that, on the day of the accident, the deceased Chadulal Lakhmanbhai was traveling in carrier rickshaw No. GJ-11-5517, which is a delivery van and a commercial vehicle and the deceased was traveling as a unauthorized gratuitous passenger and there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy of the Insurance Company and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. That wheat did not fall within the definition of goods and was a personal belonging and the learned Tribunal has ignored the objections received by the Insurance Company. That t