[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 487/1996 AKHILESH KUMAR Vs. SMT. SHOBHA KANWAR & ORS. Date: 26/03/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Ram Singh Rathore for the appellants. Mr. Tripurari Sharma for the respondent No.6. **** The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the impugned Award dated 07.12.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 40/93, whereby an award to the tune of Rs. 2,80,,000 along with interest @ 12% p.a. has been passed in favour of the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that the legal representatives of deceased Tejpal Singh have submitted in their claim petition that on 26.04.93 at about 05.30 p.m., by a truck bearing No. RJ-25-G-0156 the deceased was going from Karauli to Rahar. When the said truck reached 2-2- 1/2 Kms. ahead of Kaila Devi Police Station, on Karanpur road it was overturned resulting injuries to some persons and in this accident Tejpal Singh died due to severe injuries on his head. [2] The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned Award on the ground that the Tribunal while passing the Award acted illegally in awarding compensation against the appellant jointly and severally with that of the driver of the truck in question even when it was proved beyond doubt that the truck was insured at the relevant point of time and as such no award can be passed as against the appellant. Further the Tribunal has seriously erred in giving findings of issue No.4 regarding preliminary objections raised by the respondent Insurance Company has failed to discharge their burden in order to prove their contentions. The policy of insurance which is marked as Ex.D1 is only a cover note to prove that the vehicle in question was insured w.e.f. 10.12.92 to 09.12.93. The respondent Insurance Company utterly failed to prove the limitation as to use and the exceptions contained in the policy so much so the respondent Insurance Company failed to file policy in order to prove their pleadings/objections raised in the reply and thus, the findings given by the Tribunal on issue No.4 are contrary to the facts and record. It is further contended that the Tribunal has held the appellant liable to pay compensation jointly and severally with that of the driver of the truck i.e. respondent No.5 Kailash Chand [3] Sharma which is contrary to the facts and record. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the relevant record as also the impugned Award dated 07.12.95 passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned Award and the same requires no interference and the appellant has rightly been held liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal and placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Jayadevapa & Anr. Vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in I(2005) ACC 472 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “Insurance Policy: Liability of Insurance company: Goods vehicle: Vehicle could not have carried passengers: High Court rightly exonerated Insurance Company: No fault can be found with view taken by High Court.” He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mallawwa and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 1999 A.C.J. 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “Motor Insurance- Goods vehicle- Liability of insurance company- Whether insurance [4] company is liable for death or injuries sustained by persons carried in a goods vehicle either along with their goods of after paying fare or gratuitously- Held:no.” I have carefully gone through the judgments referred before this Court as also the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of any interference in the impugned Award dated 07.12.95 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, is made out. The appellant utterly failed to make out any case which requires interference by this Court. Consequently, the civil misc. appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/