The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of a gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant legal precedents.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba in M.A.C. No. 1/05/03, dated 4.9.2006.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondents No.

1 to 6 have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death

of Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was travelling in a Tanker No. HR-03-9974 on 3.11.2002, owned by the appellants. The accident took place at 12.05 P.M.. Ashok Kumar along with driver and conductor of the vehicle died on the spot. Ashok Kumar was employed as ASI in the Police Department and was posted at Kaza.

3 The appellants filed their respective reply. According to the appellants, the accident has not taken place due to the negligence of the driver. According to them, the vehicle was fully and comprehensively insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident. In other words, their submission is that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify.

4 The Insurance Company, in its reply, stated that Ashok Kumar was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the tanker and he was not covered under the Policy. It was mandatory for the owner to have policy under the P.L.I Act, 1991, in addition to the Policy under the Act.

5 The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 13,07,700/- with interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company. Hence, this appeal.

6 Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, has vehemently argued that respondent No.7-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the appellants. He then contended that the accident has not taken place due to the fault of the driver. He has also argued that the compensation paid to the claimants is on higher side.

7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.

8 In order to prove income of deceased Ashok Kumar, Smt. Kamla appeared as PW2 and deposed that Ashok Kumar was posted at Kaza and his monthly salary was approximately Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has assessed loss of income/dependency to the claimants to Rs.7,998/- per month and Rs.95,976/- per annum. Multiplier of 13 has been applied and the total loss of future income to the claimants came to be Rs.12,47,688/-. The claimant-wife has been given Rs.25,000/- for the loss of consortium, minor claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and conventional chargers of Rs. 10,000/- were also paid to the claimants. The Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 13. The compensation paid by the learned Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration the income of deceased Ashok Kumar. The factum of the accident is not denied by the appellants or the Insurance Company. The insurance policy is Ext. RW 1/A. The vehicle involved in the accident was goods vehicle. It was not authorized under the Policy to carry passengers. Therefore, Ashok Kumar was not supposed to be travelling in a goods vehicle. His status was of a gratuitous passenger.

9 Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, has relied upon report of the Investigating Officer dated 27.11.2003 and order of the Insurance Ombudsman dated 1.11.2004. However, the fact of the matter is that Ashok Kumar was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in breach of the mandatory conditions of Insurance Policy, Ext. RW 1/A. The Insurance Company cannotbe forced to indemnify the appellants in the case of gratuitous passenger.

10Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and others, (2003) 2 SCC 223, have held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle. Their Lordships have held as under:

“9. Under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 the requirements of policies and limits of liability had been prov