JUDGMENT :

1. By the impugned award dated 21.04.2007 made in Claim Case No. 100/2007, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, awarded Rs.76,000/- along with interest of 6% against claim of Rs.25,99,800/-made by claimant-Priti for the permanent disablement of 26.24% sustained by her, while she was travelling in a Jeep.

2. The accident took place on 31.05.2006 when the claimant and others were travelling on a private Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-14C-7192 and unknown rash and negligent Truck hit the Jeep from behind, as a result whereof the people in the Jeep sustained injuries. For the accident aforesaid, Dudu Police Station case No. 55/2006 was registered and after investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the owner of the unknown Truck. The Jeep in question was insured with appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide copy of insurance at Ex.4.

3. The certificate issued by the Medical Board in respect of nature of disablement of the claimant is Ex.6. The claimant was examined as AW/1. She deposed that along with her other relatives she had got seated in the Jeep. When the Jeep reached near K.G. Mod, two more passengers got seated in the Jeep. The Jeep was of a relative of the claimant, hence, she had not paid any fare. She has specifically stated that due to darkness, she could not see the Truck, which had dashed the Jeep from behind. She disclosed her age as 22 years on the date of accident. She has stated that she was earning Rs.3,300/-per month by stitching/sewing cloths and other manual work. The witness was not confronted on her claim of income.

4. NAW.1-JK Jain is an Officer of National Insurance Company Ltd. He has deposed that the insurance policy was “an act policy” only and the vehicle was registered as private vehicle and not for commercial uses but the passengers were being carried on that, hence, there is violation of the terms of policy as such there is no liability of the Insurance Company.

5. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that since the policy was an ‘act on policy’, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover, the amount paid to the claimant, from the owner of the vehicle.

6. Since claimant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, she challenged the award in SBCMA No.2854/2007.

7. The appellant-National Insurance Company is not satisfied with the award on the ground that no liability was there against the insurer, therefore, there was no question of payment of compensation and recovery of the same from the owner, rather direct liability of owner should have been held by the learned Tribunal. Hence, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2582/2007 is filed by the insurer.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2582/2007 :

8. Mr. R.P. Vijay, learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd. submits that the controversy lies in a very narrow compass. Since the policy was an “act policy” between the insurer and the insured, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment to a passenger travelling on a private vehicle or even to a gratuitous passenger as claimed by the claimant. He next contends that the evidence on record would reveal that there is violation of the conditions of policy therefore, no liability lies with the Insurance Company.

9. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others reported in (2003)2 SCC 223, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013)1 SCC 731 and on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Varju & Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in WLC (Raj.) 2005(4) 1.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contends that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there