1 14 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1153/2006. Daya Ram & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sayari & Ors. Date of Order : 14th March 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None for the appellants. .... BY THE COURT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 4, owners and driver of the vehicle involved in accident against the common award dated 09.03.2004 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh insofar it relates to Claim Case No.511/2001. By the award impugned, the Tribunal has decided five claim applications relating to the same vehicular accident together and while rejecting these claim applications (Claim Case Nos. 637/2001, 636/2001 and 643/2001) for want of evidence, has proceeded to award compensation in the sum of Rs.1,52,000/- in Claim Case No.511/2001 in favour of the claimants Smt. Sayari Devi and others, dependents of about 50 years old victim Bhagwatidas; and in the sum of Rs.15,000/- to the injured claimant Mangi Lal in Claim Case No.638/2001. While making the award aforesaid against the owners and driver of the tractor-trolley involved in accident, the Tribunal 2 has proceeded to exonerate the insurer of its liability with the finding that the victims were travelling as unauthorised passengers in the vehicle and there was no insurance coverage in relation to such occupants of the tractor-trolley that was insured for agricultural purposes only. This appeal against the award aforesaid in relation to Claim Case No.511/2001 was filed on 29.07.2004 and was reported to be barred by limitation by 46 days. The application for condonation of delay was considered and rejected on 19.10.2005 with the finding that the appellants have not been able to make out any sufficient ground for condonation of delay; and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time barred. The matter was taken in intra-court appeal by the present appellants and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.76/2005 was heard and allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.07.2006. The Hon'ble Division Bench was of the view that in the circumstances of the present case where the insurer has been absolved of its liability, the appellants should be given a chance of hearing in this appeal on merits. The Hon'ble Division Bench proceeded to condone the delay and while setting aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2005 remitted this miscellaneous appeal for decision on merits. Accordingly, this appeal was registered on 11.08.2006 and was placed for admission. 3 On 13.09.2006 when nobody appeared for the appellants, after examining the award in question this Court directed the office to report if any other appeal against the impugned award has been preferred or not and if so found, to place the same alongwith this appeal. The office has pointed out that no such other appeal has been filed as per computer report. This appeal was then taken up on 05.10.2006 and yet for nobody appearing for the appellants, it was adjourned to be placed after eight weeks. This appeal was again taken up on 04.12.2006 and yet nobody appeared for the appellants and yet was adjourned to be placed after eight weeks. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before the Court today only. Learned counsel Mr. Vineet Jain appeared today and submitted that they are now not the counsel in this matter as another counsel was engaged by the appellants while taking up the matter in intra-court appeal. Nobody else has put in appearance for the appellants and, as noticed, this matter is being regularly adjourned for want of appearance. In the overall circumstances, the record has been examined. The Tribunal has proceeded to exonerate the insurer of its liability essentially for the reason that the victims were travelling in a tractor-trolley and the insurance coverage of the vehicle was specifically in relation to its agricultural use. 4 The Tribunal has observed that even if used for goods carriage, the trolley was not meant for passenger transport; nor any premium was charged so as to cover the risk of such passengers. The Tribunal has also observed that at the time of accident, i.e. on 04.03.2002 at about 1:30 p.m., the victims were in the vehicle in question as a part of procession towards Modiya Mahadev temple on the occasion of Shivratri. In view of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in exonerating the insurer of its liability. Moreover, as noticed above, by the impugned award dated 09.03.2004 the Tribunal has also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the injured-claimant Mangi Lal in claim case No.638/2001. As per the office report, no other appeal except the present one has been filed against the award impugned; and that obviously means that the award made in Claim Case No.638/2001 has not been put to challenge by the appellants. The finding on exoneration of insurer remains common in relation to all the cases decided together by the common award; and if the appellants have chosen to suffer the same in one claim case and thereby it attains finality in relation to the said case, as a necessary corollary, cannot be permitted to be urged in the present appeal for there cannot be two inconsistent findings in relation to the same insurance policy of the same vehicle 5 concerning the same accident. For this reason alone, the present appeal could only be said to be an exercise in futility. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.1,52,000/- in relation to demise of 50 years old victim, taking his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and with application of multiplier of 13 to a multiplicand towards loss of contribution at Rs.10,000/- per annum could only be said to be rather on the lower side. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the award in question does not require interference in this appeal at the instance of the vehicle owners and driver. The appeals fails on merits and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/