AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. S. A. Marathe, learned Counsel for Appellant and Mr. B. D. Vora, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. None appeared for the Respondent No.1, though served.
The Appellant/Insurance Company, by way of present Appeal has challenged the Judgment and order dated 2/9/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Clams Tribunal, Pandharkawda (Kelapur), District Yavatmal in MACP No. 19/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Claimant inclusive of the amount awarded to him under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
On perusal of the impugned Judgment it appears that the grievance raised by the present Appellant is that the Mini Truck bearing registration No. MH-31/5833, which is offending vehicle in the matter, was insured with the Insurance Company for the purpose of carrying goods only, but the Claimant was travelling by the said vehicle in the capacity of an illegal fare paid passenger, and as per the terms of the policy, risk of the Claimant was not covered. It is also the submission of the Appellant that no passenger premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the Claimant. Furthermore, the Claimant was a third party. In this background, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for Appellant that Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation to the Claimant.
In the light of this submission, the learned Reference Court has considered the documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record and held that though the policy is for goods carrier, but the terms and conditions annexed thereto and relied upon by the Appellant/Insurance Company shows that these terms and conditions apparently are in respect of commercial vehicles. It is further observed that after going through the terms and conditions, it appears that these terms and conditions are in respect of passenger carrying vehicle and not in respect of goods carriage. It is also observed by the learned Tribunal that the Respondent/Clamant was travelling in Mini Truck along with his goods and risk to him was mandatorily covered as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, according to the learned Tribunal the Insurance Company failed to establish its defence which is available to them under Section 149(2) (i) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
After recording the evidence in this regard, the learned Tribunal has considered the injury claim and awarded Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent/Claimant.
Considering the overall factual position in the matter, I am of the opinion that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are prima facie seems to be in consonance with the provisions of law. The perusal of Insurance Policy (Exhibit-28) shows that its terms and conditions are in respect of commercial vehicle and not in respect of Goods vehicle. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 was travelling in the Mini Truck along with his goods. Hence, the Appellant/Insurance Company failed to establish its defence before the Tribunal.
Insofar as compensation to the Respondent No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal specifically recorded that the Respondent No.1/Claimant did not place on record the proof showing that he caused permanent disability or said disability affects the regular work or cause loss in his future income.
Hence, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is not required in the matter. As a result, present Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.