"Liability Only Policy" excludes coverage for gratuitous passengers in private vehicles; insurer not liable, vehicle owner responsible for compensation in accident deaths.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Court below, against award dated 27.04.2013, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal below”), in Claim Petition No. 35 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by petitioner Anarkali (since deceased) was allowed with costs and compensation of Rs. 2,53,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization was awarded in favour of the petitioner, which was ordered to be paid by respondent No. 3 being owner of the vehicle in question.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.2009, Mam Chand (since deceased) was coming from Jana towards Raison after selling his bakery products and on his way, he took lift from one Surinder Kumar, in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34A-4943. When the said vehicle reached Naggar Jhor, it met with an accident and Surinder Kumar and Mam Chand died on the spot. As per the petitioner, deceased was running a bakery shop under the name and style of “Kisan Bakery” and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, as such, compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed.

3. Respondent No. 1, by filing reply, contested the petition and stated that he had sold the vehicle on 04.02.2009 to one Jai Chand and at the time of accident Jai Chand was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company in its reply took preliminary objections that driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the vehicle was being plied without valid documents. On merits, income and occupation of the deceased has been denied and it has been pleaded that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle.

5. Respondent No. 3 in his reply stated that he had purchased the vehicle from respondent No. 1 on 20.05.2010. He admitted that vehicle in question met with an accident on 09.11.2009, in which, Surinder Kumar and Mam Chand had died.

6. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 22.06.2012:-

“1. Whether Mam Chand had died in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of deceased driver of vehicle No. HP-34A-4943? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No. 2 being indemnifier is liable to pay the compensation? OPR-1
4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-2
5. Whether the deceased driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?
6. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger? OPR-2
7. Relief.”

7. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition was allowed with costs and compensation of Rs. 2,53,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization was awarded in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, being owner of the vehicle in question, was held liable to pay the same.

8. Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 3 preferred the instant a