IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the importance of evidence and burden of proof in determining liability in motor vehicle accident cases. It also emphasized the need for consistency in decisions arising from similar incidents.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

All these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as these arise from the same accident and also involve common questions of facts and law.

2. On 3.11.2014, Tractor bearing Registration No. HP 67- 1789 met with an accident-causing death of five persons namely Tek Chand, Nagender Pal, Nanak Chand, Meena Devi and Surahi. One person namely Dinesh Kumar survived.

3. The tractor was owned by Sher Singh one of the respondents in these appeals (hereinafter referred to as the owner) and was insured with the appellants herein.

4. Claim Petitions No. 42 of 2015 Navratri Devi & others vs. Sher Singh & another and 56 of 2015 titled as Krishna Devi & others vs. Sher Singh & another were preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Nagender Pal and Tek Chand. In both these petitions, stand taken by the claimants was that deceased Nagender Pal and Tek Chand were pedestrians. Tractor bearing Registration No. HP 67-1789 rolled down from the road in such a manner that the deceased were injured and consequently died.

5. Claim Petition Nos. 20 of 2015 and 21 of 2015 were filed by the legal representatives of deceased Meena Devi and Nanak Chand. In fact, both the deceased persons Nanak Chand and Meena Devi were husband and wife, therefore, they had common legal representatives. In these petitions it was averred by the claimants that deceased Meena Devi and Nanak Chand were occupants travelling on the tractor being driven by a person named Surahi.

6. The cause of accident in all above claim petitions was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of said Surahi.

7. The owner of the vehicle contested the claim petitions by alleging that Surahi was not employed as driver by him. The owner had employed another person as driver, who was on leave. Deceased Surahi without his consent and knowledge had driven the tractor which met with an accident. The owner also claimed indemnification from the insurer on the basis of comprehensive insurance policy purchased by him.

8. The insurer also contested the claim petitions by alleging that the deceased persons including Nagender Pal and Tek Chand were occupants travelling on the tractor. Since the tractor was not meant to carry passengers, the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers and the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured/owner. It was also alleged that the person who was driving the tractor at the time of accident was not having any driving license.

9. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal” allowed all the claim petitions. In MAC Nos. 42 of 2015 and 56 of 2015, the deceased have been held to be the pedestrians. The claimants in the said petitions were held entitled for compensation on the premise that the deceased persons were third parties. The liability has been fastened upon the Insurer. In MAC Nos. 20 of 2015 and 21 of 2015, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased were travelling with their goods and as such, had the capacity of being owner of goods. The right of claimants to have compensation on account of deaths of Meena Devi and Nanak Chand was upheld and again the insurer has been made liable to satisfy the award.

10. By way of following appeals, the insurer has assailed the aforesaid awards:

FAO 352/2016 (MAC 42 of 2015)

FAO 61/2017 (MAC 56 of 2015)

FAO 261/2016 (MAC 20 of 2015)

FAO 253 of 2016 (MAC 21 of 2015)

11. In respect of awards passed in MAC Nos. 42 of 2015 and 56 of 2015, learned counsel for Insurer has submitted that the deceased Nagender Pal and Tek Chand were the occupants/gratuitous passengers on the vehicle. The story that both the deceased persons were pedestrian is alleged to have been fabricated with a purpose to make the insurer liable. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding deceased Nagender Pal and Tek Chand as pedestrian have also been alleged to be contrary to the evidence on record.

12. In respect of Awards passed in MAC Nos. 20 of 2015 and 21 of 2015, it has been alleged that the tract