ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The Insurance Company as appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 28.12.2007, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 870 of 1998.

2. The facts in brief are:

2.1 That Rajakmiya Alarkhamiya Matari (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died on 11.06.1998 on account of accident occurred while going in Chhakado Rickshaw No.GJ–10–T–8361. It was case of the claimants that the deceased was going in a chhakado rickshaw loaded with mangos and while going from Vanthali to Upleta the rickshaw turned turtled, resulted into accident. The FIR was lodged (Exh.–46) and panchnama (Exh.–48) was also prepared. It was case of the original claimants that the deceased was doing fruit selling business and the accident took place while he was going for his business purposes. The deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month and was 45 years old at the time of accident. For the said accident, the claimants filed claim petition under Section

166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.2 The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record and after hearing the parties awarded total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of petition till its realization under different heads as under:

Rs. 4,50,000/- for future loss of dependency Rs. 20,000/- for loss of consortium Rs. 20,000/- for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses Rs.5,00,000/- Total

2.3 Aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 28.12.2007, the Insurance Company as appellant has filed this appeal, challenging its liability.

3. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Amar D. Mithani for the respondents No.2 and 3 and learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for the respondents No.1 to 1.5.

4. Appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati contended that the Tribunal is in error in allowing the claim petition as the deceased was traveling with the goods in the insured goods carriage vehicle at the time of accident. He further contended that as per the insurance policy, only the driver was permitted to travel in the vehicle meant for carriage of goods, and therefore, according to the rules of policy, no labourer or owner of the goods or caretaker of the goods was allowed to travel with the goods by traveling on the body of the vehicle. He, therefore, contended that appeal may kindly be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for the respondents No.2 and 3 contended that the contention raised by the appellant is no more res- integra in view of the decision of this Court in First Appeal No.1410 of 2009. She, thus, submitted to dismiss the appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions and evidence on record. As noticed from the record, it is not in dispute that the deceased died on account of accident while he was traveling in the Chhakado Rickshaw loaded with the mangos. The deceased was owner of the goods and had hired the tempo for transportation of goods. He was traveling on the vehicle as owner of the goods. It is also not in dispute that it was a light–motor vehicle and duly insured with the appellant. Undisputedly, the accident took place on 11.06.1998, which was subsequent to the amendment of Section 147 of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994.

6.1 Section 147 of the Act reads as under:

147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability— (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which –

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) –

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person includ