IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a vehicle must have a valid permit and meet specific criteria to be classified as an ambulance for insurance liability purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the common judgment and award dated 11.08.2016(hereinafter as ‘the impugned award’) passed by learned MACT whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed claims of the respective claimants in MAC Case no. 414/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 413/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 416/2015 (Death matter), MAC Case No. 417/2015 (Death matter), MAC Case No. 415/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 419/2015 (Death Matter), MAC Case No. 589/2015 (Death matter) and MAC Case No. 418/2015 (Death matter) and the Appellant/Insurance Company along with the Owner and driver of the offending vehicle has been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. These appeals have been filed seeking quashing of the impugned award in respect of the above Claim petitions. As these appeals arise out of the same accident the facts of appeal no. S.B. C.M.A. No. 2729/2016 are being taken, illustratively.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.08.2012 the claimants, after getting Eye Surgery/Eye Treatment at an Eye Health Camp organized at Barmer Netra Jyoti Hospital, Barmer were returning to their respective destinations along with their relatives onboard the Mini Bus bearing registration no. RJ04 PA 0580(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’) of Barmer Jan Seva Samiti, which was being driven negligently and at high speed by Tulcharam (hereinafter as ‘Driver/Respondent No. 2’) and at around 12:00PM – 12:30PM on 26.08.2012, the vehicle turned turtle as a result of burst of its rear tyre near Surat ki Beri on N.H.-15. As a result of the accident some of the passengers travelling in the vehicle died and others sustained injuries. On the written complaint of one- Ramesh who was also traveling in the vehicle, the police registered FIR No. 151/12 and after investigation submitted a Chargesheet against the Driver/Respondent No. 2. The claimants filed their respective claim petitions before the learned tribunal seeking compensation.

3. It was averred in the claim petitions by the claimants that Omprakash (Respondent no. 3/Owner) and Driver/Respondent No. 2 are the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively and the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company therefore, they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. It was contended by the Respondent no. 3/owner and Respondent no. 2/driver in their common reply to the claim petition before the learned tribunal that the accident did not happen due to the negligent driving. They further contended that the vehicle was under the control and ownership of Barmer Jan Seva Samiti, Barmer (A NGO which operates Shelter Homes and Netra Jyoti Hospital, where economically weak eye-patients are provided eye treatment/surgeries free of cost). They further averred in their reply that in alternative if the learned tribunal finds any negligence on the part of the driver/respondent no. 2 then the appellant/insurance company should be held liable as the vehicle was insured with it.

5. It was contended by the appellant/insurance company in its reply to the claim petition before the learned tribunal that around 45-40 passengers were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident however, as per the registration certificate of the vehicle its seating capacity is only of 20 passengers. It was further alleged by the appellant/insurance company that the vehicle did not have any permit and fitness at the time of the accident which is a clear violation of the insurance policy hence, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay.

6. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed four issues which are being reproduced as follows :

7. The claimants examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents(Ex. 1 to 59). On the other hand, the appellant/insurance company examined Khe