The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the court cannot adjudicate on certain aspects, including contributory or composite negligence and the liability of the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company.

JUDGMENT :

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This first appeal from order filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1988’) arises out of judgment and decree/award dated 01.04.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIth Additional District Judge, Etawah in Motor Claims Petition No. 151 of 1995 awarding Rs.1,57,000/-along with 9% annual interest from the date of judgment till the date of actual payment.

3. Facts in nutshell, are that deceased Jaswant Singh was travelling on Truck bearing number USS-6158 on 28.03.1995 along with his brothers, owner of the truck and the driver to carry peel of acacia tree, when the truck on which the deceased was going met with an accident with another Truck bearing number BHB-3561 coming from the opposite direction. The deceased, Jaswant Singh and his brother sustained severe injuries, and were taken to hospital at Etawah for medical treatment where he succumbed to injuries and unfortunately died on 09.04.1995. The deceased, Jaswant Singh was bachelor and claim petition was filed by his mother, Brijrani and two surviving brothers, Ajab Singh and Charan Singh.

4. The trial court framed following issues:-

^^1- D;k fnukad& 28-03-95 dks le; djhc 4-30 cts lqcg xzke&uxyk nyi ds ikl eqxy jksM Fkkuk& bdfny ftyk& bVkok esa tloUr flag Vªd uEcj ;wŒ,lŒ,lŒ& 6158 esa ;k=k dj jgk Fkk\

2- D;k mDr fnukad] LFkku o le; ij Vªd laŒ & chŒ,pŒchŒ & 3561 ds pkyd dh rsth o ykijokgh ls okgu pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k Vªd laŒ ;wŒ,lŒ,lŒ & 6158 esa VDdj gq;h] ftlds Qy&lo:i tloUr ?kk;y gks x;s vkSj mlds pksVsa vkbZ vkSj pksVksa ds dkj.k fnukad 09&04&95 dks mldh e`R;q gq;h\

3- D;k mDr fnukad dks okgu laŒ ;wŒ,lŒ,lŒ& 6158 chfer Fkk\

4- D;k nq?kZVuk ds fnu okgu laŒ ;wŒ,lŒ,lŒ& 6158 oS/k MhŒ,yŒ o :V ijfeV ds v/khu ugha pyk;k tk jgk Fkk\

5- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk Vªd laŒ& chŒ,pŒchŒ 3561 ds pkyd dh vFkok e`rd dh Lo;a dh ykijokgh ls gq;h\

6- D;k ;kphx.k eqrd ds dkuwuh okfjlku gS\

7- D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdkj ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gk¡ rks fdruk vkSj fdl i{k ls\^^

5. The Tribunal while deciding issue nos. 1 and 2 found that the accident took place on 28.03.1995 at about 4:30 a.m. due to two trucks colliding wherein Jaswant Singh died. While deciding issue nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal held that the Truck No. USS-6156 was insured and had the fitness certificate and the driver had valid driving license. While deciding issue no. 7, the Tribunal held that claim petition filed by claimants was not under Section 140 or Section 166 of the Act of 1988, and it was under Section 163-A and thus there was no need to find that accident took place on whose fault. The Tribunal while calculating the amount due and payable to the claimants at Rs.1,57,000/-along with 9% interest, final award was made on 01.04.2000. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Truck No. USS-6158 was carrying gratuitous passenger and it was a goods vehicle and was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurer’s policy, thus, there was no liability of the insurance company. He then contended that insurance company cannot be held liable for liability arising out of death of a person who was travelling by the vehicle as a passenger other than person covered under the contract of insurance. Sri Mehrotra only pressed the appeal on the ground that the deceased, Jaswant Singh was travelling as gratuitous passenger and risk of gratuitous passenger was not covered by the insurance company and thus liability cannot be fastened. Reliance has been placed upon a decision rendered by Gujrat High Court in case of Hiteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel Vs. Rajendra Mataprasad Yadav, 2020 (1) TAC 840 Gujrat.

7. On the other side, Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that deceased, Jaswant Singh was not a gratuitous passenger, in fact, he was travelling with owner