Point of Law : When parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge later either in the same Court or in a court of appeal that evidence produced was inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. All these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the facts involved therein germinate from the occurrence of same accident involving motor vehicle and thus involving common question of facts and law.

2. In all these appeals, insurer/appellant has assailed the awards passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) on the grounds that the occupants of the vehicle, on account of whose death, compensation has been awarded, were gratuitous passengers. The specific contention of insurer is that the vehicle involved in the accident was a “Goods Carriage Vehicle” and was not permitted to carry passengers, save and except to the extent as permissible under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”). As per appellant/insurer, the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle as owners of goods and in alternative, it is submitted that even said plea was not available to the claimants, as the vehicle in question permitted sitting capacity of only two persons including the driver and the policy of insurance has to be read in such context only.

3. In all these appeals, the insurer/appellant has filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for production of additional evidence, whereby a copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle and also of insurance policy purchased by insured have been sought to be placed on record. In FAO No. 4 of 2016, the application bears CMP No. 238 of 2016, in FAO No. 6 of 2016, such application bears CMP No. 241 of 2016 and in FAO No. 7 of 2016, it bears CMP No. 243 of 2016. These applications deserve to be allowed, as all the parties have relied upon the policy of insurance. Even otherwise, the documents sought to be placed on record, as noticed above, are found necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the cases. Accordingly, all the applications bearing CMP Nos. 238, 241 and 243, filed in FAO Nos. 4, 6 and 7 respectively are allowed and the copies of registration certificate as well as insurance policy are taken on record.

4. Brief facts, commonly involved and necessary for adjudication of all these appeals are that on 2.6.2013 at about 12.10 PM vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-2802 “Bolero Camper” manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra, met with an accident, at place Bhalog Dhar in District Chamba. Admittedly, the aforesaid vehicle was a Goods Carriage Vehicle. The registration certificate of the vehicle placed on record reveals that it had sitting capacity for two persons including driver. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by respondent Jagdish @ Jaggu.

5. Four persons namely (1) Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Sh. Tilak Raj, (2) Smt. Rekha wife of Gandhi, (3) Shri Virender son of Sh. Bhimo and (4) PW-2 Shri Sunil Kumar were traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and except for Shri Sunil Kumar all of them had died as a result of injuries suffered by them.

6. The legal heirs/representatives of all the above mentioned deceased persons filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act. The petition for compensation on account of death of Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Sh. Tilak Raj was registered as MAC Petition No. 518 of 2013, the petition for compensation on account of death of Smt. Rekha wife of Sh. Gandhi was registered as MAC Petition No. 516 of 2013 and petition for compensation on account of death of Sh. Virender Son of Bhimo was registered as MAC Petition No. 514 of 2013.

7. It was averred in all these petitions that on the fateful day “Jatar” (religious ceremony) was organized by Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Sh. Gandhi at place known as “Kangar.” All the deceased persons were occupying the vehicle as owners of goods, as they were carrying different articles for the “Jatar Ceremony.” In all the petitions, the cause of accident was alleged as rash and negligent driving of the dri