The court affirmed that a passenger in a vehicle is entitled to compensation under the insurance policy, regardless of ownership, as long as the policy covers such passengers.

JUDGMENT :

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.) 

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Additional District Court, Patan passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 2532 of 2002, by which, the learned Tribunal has held and directed the original opponent no.3 – National Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the original claimants, the original opponent no.3 – insurer has preferred present First Appeal.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 28.04.1997, at about 2.00 o’clock in the afternoon, when the deceased Bhartiben was travelling towards Gandhinagar in the Maruti Car bearing registration No.GJ- 2-A-7156 driven by the respondent No.1, at that time, while overtaking a scooter at Gozariya road near village Meu, the scooter came in his way and on sudden application of breaks, he lost control over the Maruti Car and dashed with one tree. As a result, the deceased Bhartiben was thrown out of the Maruti car and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The claimants therefore, filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the appellant Insurance Company.

2.1 After the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,09,987/- towards compensation alongwith costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 08.09.1997 to 15.04.2010 till the date of realization.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the appellant – National Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – original claimants.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that the claimants are not entitled to seek any compensation as it is completely in breach of the policy conditions. He has submitted that the deceased was travelling in the car which was registered in the name of her husband and therefore, the deceased cannot be considered as a third party and not entitled for any compensation. He has further submitted that the claimants have not produced any cogent and valid evidence before the Tribunal to show the income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has committed a grave and serious error while passing the impugned award awarding the amount of compensation considering the income of the deceased from the business. He has also submitted that the documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal is merely a copy and no any relevant material is produced in support of the said document and even the claimants have not examined any witness in support of the income tax return of the deceased and thus, it cannot be termed as valid documentary evidence and therefore also, the Tribunal has committed a serious error of law. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the contention raised by the Insurance Company in their written statement. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has heavily relied upon the conditions enumerated in the policy and submitted that it was a private car policy and not comprehensive or composite policy and therefore, the risk of the passenger is not covered under the same. He has further submitted that the claimants have not properly established the age of the deceased Bhartiben and therefore also, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the present appeal is required to be allowed.

5.1 In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered ion case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi and Others , reported in [2008] 5 SCC 736 , wherein, it has been observed and held in para-7 as under :

“7. It is now a well settled principle of law that in a case where t