Insurance companies are not liable to indemnify claims for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as their risks are not covered by statutory insurance policies.

1. Since common questions of law are involved in all these appeals under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. First Appeal Nos. 710 to 713 of 2007 are directed against the common judgment and award dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos. 1205, 1207, 1208 and 1218 of 1996 and First Appeal No. 3852 of 2008 which has been preferred by the insurance company, is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2259 of 1999.

3. A brief outline of the facts which have given rise to the first appeals may be referred to as follows:
3.1 First Appeal No. 3852 of 2008: The claimant filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Act before the Claims Tribunal stating that on 8.2.1999, deceased Chandrakantbhai was travelling in a Matador Tempo bearing No. GJ 5 - T 2312 along with his goods. The driver of the Matador was driving the same at excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when they reached Dhaduli - Lakhpat Road, the driver lost control over the vehicle which turned turtle. Deceased suffered serious injuries on account of the accident and succumbed to the same. Claimant claimed Rs. 4,00,000 by way of compensation under different heads. Before the Claims Tribunal it was the case of the appellant insurance company that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The Claims Tribunal in para 28 of the impugned award has discussed the issue and expressed the view that though the insurance company was not liable for that act, but it is liable on behalf of the owner to pay the compensation to the third party, viz., the petitioner and the insurance company may recover it from the owner and it would be treated as a decree in favour of insurance company. Accordingly, it held the owner, driver an the appellant insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
3.2 First Appeal Nos. 710 to 713 of 2007: Claim petitions being Claim Case Nos. 1205, 1207, 1208 and 1218 of came to be filed before the Claims Tribunal in connection with a vehicular accident which took place on 30.9.1996 at 8 P.m. at village Samadhiyala, Taluka Khambha, District Amreli, involving a tractor No. GAO 6007 whereby one Parvatiben Tejabhai succumbed to the injuries sustained by her and died, in relation to which her heirs and legal representatives filed Claim Case No. 1208 of 1996, whereas the claimants of the other claim cases sustained serious injuries. Before the Claims Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant insurance company it was contended that insurance policy had been obtained in respect of the tractor only and the vehicle involved in the accident is a tractor. The policy covers only the risk of the driver. The tractor is not a goods vehicle and there is no question of carrying passengers; the deceased and the injured - claimants were travelling on the mudguard of the wheels of the tractor and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The Claims Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , 2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and held that there is a breach of policy, but insofar as the award of compensation is concerned, at the first instance, the insurance company has to satisfy the award and then recover the awarded amount from the owner of the tractor. The Claims Tribunal, accordingly, held that the claimants were entitled to recover the compensation awarded by it from all the opponents therein, including the appellant insurance company, jointly and severally.

4