1. The question involved in these appeals is whether the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation on account of death of persons traveling in a Goods Carriage (Truck)

2. The deceased Surjit Singh and Kulbir Singh alongwith others were traveling in a Truck bearing Registration No. JKR-4055 after attending a Barat from Nagal to Malhori in the night intervening 14th and 15th of December 1991 when the truck met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck at Malhori Passi causing death of Surjit Singh and Kulbir Singh. The legal heirs/dependants of the deceased preferred two different claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda. Vide orders dated 8.5.2003 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Doda passed two different awards whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 1,29,400/- was awarded in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Surjit Singh and a compensation of Rs. 1,24,400/- was awarded in favour of dependants of Kulbir Singh. The Insurance Company, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Udhampur was directed to satisfy the amount of awards passed in the cases.

3. Not satisfied with the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Doda, the Insurance Company-appellant preferred two appeals in this court. Similarly the legal heirs/dependants of deceased persons filed separate Cross objections for enhancement of compensation amount.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file.

5. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the deceased were traveling in a truck and as such the claimants are not entitled to the compensation amount. This plea was raised in the objections but the Tribunal did not decide the same. On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the claimants has argued that the Insurance Company should pay the claim amount and recover the same from the owner. He has further argued that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 900/- per month which is not reasonable and the statute also provides that where there is no proof for the income it should be assessed at Rs. 15000/- per annum. Ms Veenu Gupta Advocate appearing for the owner of he vehicle has submitted that no issue was framed about the gratuitous passenger nor the Insurance company pressed the same as such this cannot be raised at this stage. In controverting the argument of the learned counsel for the owner Mr. R.K. Jain Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the facts admitted are not required to be proved. The claimants have admitted in the petitions and also in the evidence it stands proved that the deceased were traveling in a Goods carriage ( truck) and thus no proof is required.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon cases Oriental Insurance Company v. Zaharulnisha & ors. ( AIR 2008 SC 2218), National Insurance Company vs. Baljit Kaur & ors. ( 2004 AIR SCW 212), United India Insurance Company Ltd vs. Surinder & Ors. ( 2006 ACJ 1285) and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs. Roshan Lal ( CIMA No. 127/2003 decided on May 23, 2006.) In all these cases, it is held that the Insurance Company is bound to prove that the passengers traveling in goods carriage or Tractor Trolley were gratuitous passengers and thus Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also held that the liability of insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of 3rd party is statutory and the Insurance Company can recover this amount from the owner.

7. This controversy has been finally settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) SCC 423. It was held that section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not contemplate that a goods carrier was carrying a large number of passengers with a small percentage of goods as the insurance policy considerably covers the death or inju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document