1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1066 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5987 OF 2008 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant. v. Mrs. Rajashree Mohan Jadhav & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Mohan Darandale, adv. For the Appellant. Mr. S.A.Rajeshirke, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th August , 2009 P.C. 1 The respondent no.1 filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No.33 of 2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli for compensation for the injuries and permanent disabilities suffered in the motor accident. According to her, on 19.5.2001, she wanted to go to her parents place at village Tadsar. Therefore, she alongwith her husband went to Talegaon. From Talegaon, no conveyance facility was available to Tadsar. A tempo-trax bearing no MH-10-C/5134 was standing there and it was about to go to Chinchani. Opponent No.1 Vilas Kumbhar, who was driver of that tempo-trax was known to the claimant and her husband. On their request, he agreed to give them lift upto Tadsar, which is on way to Chinchani. Accordingly, both husband and wife boarded the 2 tempo-trax. According to them, after their travelled for about 4-5 kms. from Kadegaon, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, tempo- trax met with an accident and fell in a ditch off the road, due to which both the husband and wife suffered serious injuries. They were shifted to Krishna Charitable Hospital at Karad. About that accident, Crime No.36 of 2001 was registered against the driver. Initially she claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- but later on by making amendment claim was enhanced to Rs.3 lakh. The Opponent Nos.1 and 2, Driver and owner of the vehicle filed written statement and admitted that lift was given to the claimant and her husband and accident had taken place though they denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the opponent no.1. The opponent no.3, i.e., the present appellant is insurance company. It filed written statement and admitted that the vehicle was insured but it was contended that there was breach of the conditions of the policy as the claimant and her husband were traveling as fare paying passengers and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 2 Several issues were framed. After hearing the parties, the contentions of the insurance company were rejected. The claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.81,000/- inclusive of no fault liability to the 3 claimant. That award has been challenged in the present appeal by the insurance company. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant raised mainly three points. Firstly, there is breach of policy because claimant and her husband were fare paying passengers. Secondly, it is not proved that there was rash and negligent driving and thirdly, the liability of the insurance company is limited as per the terms of the insurance policy. 4 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the documents, it appears that claimant and her husband deposed before the Court that they were gratuitous passengers and they were given lift by the driver on their request because he was known to them. This fact was admitted by the owner and driver. No evidence was led by the insurance company to prove that claimant and her husband were fare paying passengers. Even in the F.I.R., there was no mention that they were fare paying passengers. Therefore, there is no material to support this contention of the insurance company. From the record, it appears that vehicle was running on the road and without involvement of any other vehicle, or animal or human-being, vehicle went off the road and fell in the valley causing accident and injuries. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal held that the 4 principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur i.e. the facts speak for themselves is applicable and it can be safely held that the driver must be held responsible for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. I find no fault in the same. Thirdly, insurance policy shows that liability of the Insurance Company would be limited to Rs.1 lakh per person. In the present case, after taking into consideration the material on record and injuries suffered, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 81,000/- only which is within the limit of liability of the Insurance Company. Therefore, on this count also there is no substance. 5 In view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 6 As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No.5987 of 2008 for stay does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)