:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 1997 Jaypal Tavanappa Chougule ..Appellant versus Goadabai Ramchandra Jadhav & Ors. ..Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 OF 1997 Jaypal Tavanappa Chougule ..Appellant versus Baburao Ramchandra Jadhav & Ors. ..Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 1997 Jaypal Tavanappa Chougule ..Appellant versus Sulochana Pandurang Jugdhar & Ors. ..Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 1997 FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 1997 Jaypal Tavanappa Chougule ..Appellant versus Rangnath K. Gardade & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. T. S. Ingale for the Appellant. Mr. Prasad Rane with R. V. More for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. H. G. Wakshe h/f. P. A Pol for Respondent No.7. :2: CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY,2005 DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY,2005 DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY,2005 ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : 1. All the aforesaid Appeals have been filed by the original owner of the vehicle which was a truck bearing No. MHL4954. The original claimants are respondents in all the appeals. Their counsel is present. Advocates for the 1st purchaser is also present - respondent no.7. 2. The incident in this case took place on 26.4.1988. The aforesaid truck was owned by the appellant. but he had sold it to the respondent No. 7 on 27.5.1985. On the date of the accident the truck was owned by respondent No.5 as the respondent No.7 had sold it to him in May 1987. The truck was insured with the insurance company. Insurance policy was valid and subsisting on the date of the accident. 3. Claim petitions came to be filed claiming compensation in the accident to the said truck on 26.4.1988. Common evidence was recorded in all those claim petitions but different awards were given by the Tribunal on the same day because the claim and other aspects were different. Awards were :3: against the present appellant who was respondent No.2 and against Tukaram Jadhav who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident and who was also driving the vehicle. The insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal, and therefore all these appeals have been filed. 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that though the appellant was the original owner of the truck he had sold the truck to respondent No. 7 on 27.5.1985 and since the truck was mortgaged to the bank for a loan taken by him the fact of his transfer was also evidenced by the record of the RTO. He drew my attention to the written statement filed by the insurance company. Paragraph 4 of the Award wherein the Tribunal has observed that it appears from the record that Jaypal transferred the said truck to opponent No.4 in the year 1985 and thereafter opponent NO.4 sold the said truck to respondent No.1 before the accident. This is reproduced by the Tribunal from the written statement of the insurance company. He therefore contended that admittedly therefore the fact of transfer of the truck by the present appellant firstly to respondent no.7 and then by respondent No. 7 to original respondent No.5 stood proved and therefore the liability in all the claim petitions should not be fastened upon him and the liability :4: has to be with Tukaram Jadhav. 5. Secondly he contended that the Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants against the insurance company on the ground that the truck in question was vehicle for transfer of goods and the victims had no business to travel by the said truck and if the victims were carried by the driver or the owner, then it was breach of the insurance policy and therefore insurance company was not liable. My attention in this regard was drawn by counsel for the appellant to paragraph 23 of the Judgment. 6. Counsel for the claimants contended that in fact the claimants had made out case to show that this truck was hired by the victims specifically for purchasing and bringing the goods and after the purchase they were travelling with the truck as his caretakers of the goods and owners of the goods and therefore there could not be said to be any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. My attention was drawn to the evidence of witness Baburao Ramchandra Jadhav Witness No.1. He has stated "that he had been to Landewadi for marriage that he had been to Landewadi for marriage that he had been to Landewadi for marriage of my daughter as the groom insisted for cot and of my daughter as the groom insisted for cot and of my daughter as the groom insisted for cot and mattresses my father went to fetch it and this truck mattresses my father went to fetch it and this truck mattresses my father went to fetch it and this truck was hired for Rs.50/-." was hired for Rs.50/-." was hired for Rs.50/-." This witness was cross examined by the insurance company and witness states :5: that he has fixed the truck for fetching cot and mattresses and he has discussed deal with the driver. Nothing fruitful has been brought out on record to falsify this witness and or falsify his evidence. It is therefore clear that victim was required to hire the truck for bringing cot and mattresses on the date of the marriage of his daughter because groom had insisted for giving him cot and mattresses. In view of these facts, finding of the trial court about the insurance company are not well founded. They are contrary to the facts on record. Persons involved in the accident were travelling in the vehicle is hired to fetch the goods and the capacity of the persons concerned with the goods. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeals are required to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order : ORDER ORDER ORDER . Appeals are partly allowed. . The findings of the Tribunal regarding liability of the appellant, are set aside and quashed. :6: . Award so far as it relates to appellant and its grant of compensation by the appellant to the victims of the accident, is set aside. . The compensation shall be payable in all the appeals by the Insurance Company and Opponent No.1 of all the four appeals with costs. Costs will be borne by the insurance company. . Amount deposited by the appellant in the Tribunal at the time of appeal should be returned to him. 8.2.2005 ( D. G. DESHPANDE, J.)