IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an 'act only' insurance policy does not cover passengers, and negligence by the vehicle driver was sufficient to hold the vehicle owners liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these misc. appeals have been preferred by the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle (Car No.GJ-6/A-5777) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.11.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (FT) No.3, Udaipur Camp Salumber in MAC Case Nos.116/2009 and 117/2009 respectively, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed while awarding compensation of Rs.19,000/-and Rs.4,49,000/- in favour of respective claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2 while exonerating the insurance companies from their liability to pay the compensation.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants filed two claim petitions claiming compensation. Claimant- Lala filed Claim Case No.116/2009 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident; and the claimants Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 others filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of their sole breadwinner late Sh. Harishchandra Parmar. In the claim petitions, it was alleged that on 14.11.2006 at 03:45 pm, on NH No.8 near Banjriya village, two vehicles viz. RJ-27-C-2816 (Jeep) and GJ-06-BA-5777 (Car) collided on account of rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. Claimant Lala and one Sh. Harji (now deceased) were the occupant of Jeep. In the said accident, claimant Lala suffered various injuries, whereas Sh. Harji (husband claimant Smt. Laxmi Devi) died on account of injuries suffered by him.

3. In the claim petition filed by claimant Lala, it was alleged that at the time of accident, he was 30 years of age and he was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Claimant Lala claimed compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- under various heads.

4. In the claim petition filed by claimants, Smt. Laxmi Devi, it was alleged that deceased Harji was employed as cleaner of Jeep and apart from this work, he was also discharging the work of loading and unloading the goods. The claimants thus claimed compensation of Rs.40,58,000/- on account of untimely death of their sole breadwinner under various heads. The accident was reported to the police and FIR was registered, wherein after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against non-claimant No.1.

5. The claim petitions were contested by the non-claimants No.1 and 2 by filing reply while denying the contents thereof. It was alleged that vehicle Jeep (RJ-27-C-2816) was plied by its driver cautiously and it was the driver of the another Car ( GJ-06-BA-5777), who plied his car negligent and hit the jeep. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. reply to claim petition was filed and, it was alleged that the vehicle Jeep was registered in the name of non-claimant No.2 and it was a private LMV vehicle, however, the same was used as passenger vehicle, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. While filing reply to Claim Case No.117/2009, the non-claimants alleged that on 14.11.2006, his neighbourer Lala came to him and requested to drop them to hospital, as his wife was suffering from labour pain. It was further alleged that in the aforesaid circumstances and taking humanitarian approach while he started for hospital in his Jeep, which was plied at a moderate speed, though in wrong side, it was hit by a Car and there was no negligent on their part. It was thus prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed.

6. On behalf of non-claimant No.4, owner of Car (GJ-06-BA-5777), reply to claim petitions was filed, while stating therein that the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.5 and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Jeep and there was no fault on his part. It was thus prayed that the claim petitions be