Bhikam Chand Golcha (Jain) vs Abdul Lateef and Others

Bhawani Singh, Chief Justice

This group of nine cases is proposed to be decided by this common judgment since they arise out of the same accident and common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg dated 12.2.1999. Besides, this will also dispose of the cross-object ion filed in M.A. No. 1172 of 1999 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Kachar Bai and another).

Accident took place on 21.4.11993 when claimants were travelling in Truck No. MIT 7555. The truck met with accident at Bafna Nala resulting in injuries to the occupants travelling in it. The Vehicle was owned by Bhikamchand Golcha and insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. Claims Tribunal came to the conslusion that the vehicle was carrying passengers for hire and reward, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. However, no direction for refund of amount of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 deposited by Insurance Company has been made by the Tribunal hence the award has been assailed by the Insurance Company. The owner of the truck Bhikamchand has also challenged the award on the ground that Insurance Company should have been saddled with the liagbility to pay compensation since persons travelling in the vehicle were gratuitous passengers and the vehicle was not being used for hire and reward. There are no cross-objections by claimants for enhancement of the award though the owner of the Truck has not only tiled appeal against the award but has also filed cross objection in M.A. No. 1172 of 1999 under Order 41 Rule 1 Code of CPC 1908.

The short question for examination and determination in this case is whether Insurance Company has been rightly exonerated by the Tribunal from the liability to pay compensation. We answer this question in the negative. There is no dispute that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident. There is also no dispute that the claimants who suffered injuries in the accident involving the vehicle owned by Bhikam Chand were travelling in this truck. In Claim Case No. 58 of 1993, Mst. Jetun Bai died in the accident. There is no evicence suggesting that the claimants were passengers for hire and reward in the vehicle in question. Therefore, they have to be taken as gratuitous passengers. Consequently, the case is covered by the decision of Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, . Consequently, the Insurance Company is held liable to pay compensation in all the cases.

What emerges from the above discussion is that the appeals filed by the Insurance Company (M.A. No. 1171 of 1999, M.A. No. 1172 of 1999, M.A. No. 1173 of 1999, M.A. No. 1174 of 1999, M.A. No. 1175 of 1999, M.A. No. 1176 of 1999 and M.A. No. 1177 of 1999) are dismissed and the appeals and cross objection filed by owner of the truck Bhikam Chand (M.A. No. 756 of 1999 and M.A. No. 1539 of 1999) are allowed to the extent that the liablility to pay compensation fixed by the Tribunal against the owner of truck is made joint and several with National Insurance Company Limited. There shall be no order as to costs.