The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company in cases of overloading and the apportionment of compensation based on the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy.

2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed these appeals challenging the award dated 31.07.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda.

3. These batch of appeals arise out of a common accident happened on 27.11.2006. More than 45 passengers were travelling in a Mini Bus bearing registration No. JK06/159 from Bhalla towards Doda, which met with an accident near Forest Check Post Pul Doda. The vehicle, admittedly, was registered and was entitled to carry 20 passengers plus driver and conductor. However, it was carrying 45 passengers and committed the breach of condition of the Insurance Policy. The offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and rolled down from the road and caused accident resulting death of nine passengers and injuries to all others. Consequent thereupon, claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased persons as well as by the injured claimants.

4. The Tribunal adjudicated upon the case in common and held that the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company was liable to pay and recover, as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

5. On this issue, there appears to be no serious dispute, however, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurance company pleads that in case of breach of condition of the Insurance Policy, more than 45 passengers are taken on board in the offending vehicle over and above the carrying capacity of 20 passengers plus driver and conductor. The offending vehicle was admittedly overloaded with 23 passengers.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that since it is a case of overloading, the Tribunal should have apportioned the liability in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. ltd. V. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 ACJ 2129.

7. Similar issue was considered by this Court in a batch of appeals with main case titled “The National Insurance co. Ltd. V. Narso Devi and another (CIMA No.119/2011) decided on 10.08.2016, where based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision, this Court apportioned the liability as per the Insurance Policy and insofar as other claims accrued, benefits were given based on the Apex Court decision. The relevant portion of judgment passed in CIMA No.119/2011 is as follows:-

“The Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. V. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 ACJ 2129, held that:-

“16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is