An insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of a goods vehicle for the risk of passengers in the vehicle unless the vehicle is being habitually used to carry passengers and the passengers are the owners of the goods or their employees.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. As in this batch of appeals propriety of the awards passed by First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in various claim cases arising out of the same accident is called in question, they were heard analogously and are hereby disposed of by this common order.

2. In M.A. No. 207 of 1995 the appellant has called in question the legal validity of the award dated 30.11.1994 in Claim Case No. 5 of 1991 (originally registered as Claim Case No. 8 of 1986) whereby the Tribunal while awarding a total sum of Rs. 70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand) has absolved the insurance company, respondent No. 3 herein, from indemnifying the owner and driver.

3. The facts as have been unfolded are that on 3.5.1986 claimant's son Umesh Kumar, a boy aged about 17 years was travelling in a truck bearing registration No. MBR 1334 and as the truck met with an accident he sustained serious injuries for which he was admitted to Manpur Hospital where he breathed his last. It was pleaded in the claim petition that he was a student of class VIII and also getting himself engaged as a daily labourer. It was set forth that the husband of the claimant had deserted her and taken another lady, and, therefore, she was totally dependent on her son. It was stated that he was contributing Rs. 500 per month and, therefore, the claimant was entitled to Rs. 90,000 on that score. A claim of Rs. 10,000 was advanced towards mental pain and suffering.

4. The non-applicant No. 1, the owner of the truck, though filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that the claims put forth by the claimants were exorbitant and in any case as his vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the insurer was liable to indemnify, but later on he chose not to contest the claim and was proceeded ex pane. The driver of the vehicle did not file his written statement and was proceeded ex pane. The insurance company filed its written statement resisting the claim of the claimants on the ground that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and was not insured for carrying passengers, and therefore, the liability could not be fastened with the insurance company. The further stand of the insurer was that the deceased persons were travelling at their own risk and the owner and the driver have to be held liable.

5. The Tribunal framed three issues and on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence arrived at the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The Tribunal further held that the vehicle was not meant for taking passengers and when more than 20 persons got into the vehicle it could not be held that they were travelling in the vehicle to look after their goods and hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the Tribunal came to hold that he would have earned Rs. 2,400 per year, and eventually, throughout life contributed Rs. 70,000 to the claimant mother. Being of this view the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000.

6. In M.A. No. 208 of 1995 claimants-appellants are the parents of deceased, Dharmendra Kumar, who was travelling in the vehicle in question on the fateful day. Due to accident he had suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. He was aged about 8 years and pursuing his studies. Claiming on various heads the claimants put forth a claim of Rs. 72,000 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal framed as many as three issues and considering the factual circumstances came to hold that the legal representatives were entitled to Rs. 35,000 towards compensation.

7. In M.A. No. 209 of 1995 the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Bharat Singh, was travelling in the vehicle in question. As he had sustained serious injuries he was taken to Manpur Hospital but he could not survive. It was put forth in the claim petition that the deceased was aged about 48 years and his incom