An 'Act only' insurance policy does not cover the risk of death or injury to gratuitous passengers carried in a private vehicle, and the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Parija, J.

All these appeals by the Insurance Company are directed against the common judgment/award dated 30.09.2000 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhenkanal, in MAC No. 159 of 1994, MAC No. 171 of 1994, MAC No. 157 of 1994, MAC No. 160 of 1994, MAC No. 173 of 1994 and MAC No. 155 of 1994, which arises out of the self same accident, awarding compensation to the claimants and directing the Insurance Company to pay the same.

2. M.A. No. 187 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 159 of 1994, M.A. No. 188 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 171 of 1994, M.A. No. 189 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 157 of 1994, M.A. No. 190 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 160 of 1994, M.A. No. 191 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 173 of 1994 and M.A. No. 192 of 2001 relates to MAC No. 155 of 1994.

3. The facts common to all the above appeals are that on 03.03.1994, the deceased Jema alias Padmalaya Mishra and Sureswar Satpathy and other injured persons were travelling in a jeep bearing No. OSS 4841 from Puri and at about 3.30 P.M. near the Octroi check gate on N.H.42, at the outskirts of Dhenkanal town, the vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner, went to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against a tree and overturned. As a result of such accident, two occupants died and other passengers suffered injuries.

4. The owner of the offending jeep appeared and filed written statement before the learned Tribunal admitting that he was the owner of the jeep No. OSS .4841 and claimed that the vehicle stood insured with the present Appellant, under a valid policy of insurance. The owner further pleaded that at the relevant point of time the vehicle was not let out for hire and that the deceased persons as well as the injured persons were travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passengers, without any payment, due to his friendly accommodation. It was further pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that the accident took place not due to any rash and negligent act by the driver but due to reasons beyond the control of the driver.

5. The Insurance Company in its written statement while denying the claim of the claimants, pleaded that as the offending vehicle (jeep) was carrying more than 10 passengers, on hire at the time of the accident, the same was in violation of the policy condition and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

6. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, including the FIR (Ext.1) and Charge Sheet (Ext.2), came to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending jeep, for which, the police after investigation, has filed charge sheet against the accused driver under Sections 279/337/338/304A I.P.C.

7. Coming to the liability to pay the compensation amount, the Insurance Company pleaded that the offending vehicle (jeep) had been let out on hire at the time of accident and the same was carrying more passengers than the permitted seating capacity, which was in violation of the policy condition and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record and the plea of the owner of the vehicle, taken in the written statement, came to hold that the deceased persons as well as the injured persons were travelling in the offending jeep as gratuitous passengers and that carrying of excess passengers was not in violation of policy condition as per Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

8. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the sole contention that as the learned Tribunal has come to find that all the persons travelling in the offending jeep, at the time of the accident, were travelling as gratuitous passengers and the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle was an 'Act only' policy, no liability could have been saddled on th