Insurer of goods carriage not liable for gratuitous passengers' death/injuries; no 'pay and recover' direction by Tribunal, as lacks Supreme Court's Article 142 power.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

Since all these appeals are the offshoots of impugned award, dated 26.11.2012, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), they are taken up together for consideration and disposal.

2. The instant appeals have been maintained by appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd., who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Tribunal below, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against impugned awards, dated 26.11.2012, passed by learned Tribunal below, whereby Claim Petitions No. 26 to 29 of 2005, filed by the petitioners-claimants, under Section 166 of the Act, were allowed and they were held entitled for compensation and respondent No. 2-United India Insurance Company (appellants herein) was directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 1-Shri Yadav Singh.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on account of death of Smt. Gindu Devi and Smt. Geeta Devi (wife of Shri Gulab Singh), and injuries suffered by Shri Govind Ram and Smt. Geeta Devi in a motor vehicle accident involving pick- up, bearing registration No. HP-49-0297, the petitioners/claimants (including the injured petitioners i.e., Shri Govind Ram and Smt. Geeta Devi) filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation from the respondents, i.e., respondent No. 1-owner-cum-driver and respondent No. 2-Insurer of vehicle No. HP-49-029.

3(a). As per the petitioners, Smt. Gindu Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi (deceased persons) and injured persons Shri Govind Ram and Smt. Geeta Devi, on 23.01.2005 boarded the offending vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-49-0297, from village Nau to village Jalla alongwith their grocery items, as care taker of the goods being owned and driven by respondent No. 1. When the offending vehicle reached village Basni Nalla, around 05:30 p.m., it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and all the occupants of the vehicle, suffered injuries. Two persons, namely Gindu Devi and Geeta Devi died on the spot and other sustained multiple injuries. The offending vehicle was on its way from Panarsa to Jawalapur and it was insured with respondent No. 2. The claimants, i.e., legal representatives of the deceased persons and the injured persons were held entitled for compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respondents.

4. Respondent No. 1-Shri Yadav Singh, owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle, in his reply took preliminary objections qua maintainability, non-joinder of the necessary parties, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, it was averred that the deceased as well as the injured neither boarded his vehicle nor any accident took place in the manner as pleaded by the claimants. As per the replying respondent, the accident had not occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. It was averred that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Lastly, dismissal of the petition was sought.

5. Respondent No. 2-United I