IMPORTANT POINT
Insurers are not liable for injuries to gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles under the M.V. Act, as established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 (insurer of offending Truck number RJ-19-G-1343) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 22.06.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.40/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, and awarded compensation in their favour to tune of Rs.2,88,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 27.04.1995. While awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the insurer(s) of both the vehicles involved in the accident.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,10,000/- on account of untimely death of late Sh. Parvat Singh, who lost his life while he was travelling in truck bearing registration number RJ-19-G-1343 from Chanderiya to his native place Nagaur. The said truck was being plied by its driver, namely, Anwar Khan. When the said truck reached near Rupaheli, the said truck collided with another bearing registration number AP-04-T-2239, which was plied by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.4, namely, Hemprasad. The said accident took place due to negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicle. On account of the injuries suffered by late Sh. Parvat Singh, he died. It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was 38 years of age and he was earning Rs.3800/- per month.

3. Upon receipt of the summons, the non-claimants No.2, 4 and 5 did not appear and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. Name of non-claimant No.1 was, however, deleted.

4. The claim petition was contested by non-claimants No.3 (appellant herein) and the non-claimant No.6 i.e. insurer of another Truck No.AP-04-T-2239. The non-claimant No.3/appellant denied the averments made in the claim petition. An objection with regard to driver of the vehicle not having valid and effective licence was taken. It was further alleged that the since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and no premium was charged by the insurance company, therefore, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation.

5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including relief. In support of their claim petition, the claimant examined two witnesses viz. AW.1 Antar Kanwar and AW.2 Kalyan Singh and certain documents were exhibited. No evidence was, however, led by the non-claimants.

6. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard final arguments of the parties and after considering the material placed before it, vide judgment and award dated 22.06.2002 partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and both the insurance companies i.e. non-claimant No.3/appellant here in and non-claimant No.6 i.e. insurer of Truck No. AP-04-T-2239 were held liable to satisfy the award.

7. Being aggrieved of the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal, insofar as holding the appellant liable to pay compensation, the appellant/non-claimant No.3 has preferred this misc. appeal with a prayer to exonerate it from its liability.

8. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/non-claimant No.3 vehemently submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while deciding the issue No.4 against the appellant to the extent of 50%. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Parvat Singh was travelling in the Truck insured with the appellant, as a gratuitous passenger, which was a goods vehicle and, therefore, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation as no premium was charged covering the risk of any passenger travelling in the goods vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submit