1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.830 OF 2009 (National Insurance Co. Vs. Indirabai Pandurang Marathe) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Shyam Golegaonkar, Adv., h/f Mr. S.V.Kulkarni, Adv., for the appellant. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 9th July, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. Heard the Counsel for the Insurance Company extensively. The appeal is heard and finally decided by consent. 2. The Counsel for the Insurance Company, in categorical terms, indicated, in the light of pronouncement of judgment of Apex Court, in the matter of United India Assurance Company Ltd. Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and others (AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1576(1)), the risk of gratuitous passenger carried in private vehicle is not covered and, according to him, at the most, the risk in terms of policy could be extended to Rs.1,00,000/- and not beyond that. 3. The fateful accident and death of deceased, a 2 B.E. (Production) contractor, having monthly earning of Rs.6,000/- by now is not in dispute. The unfortunate accident is not as a consequence of negligence of the driver but his approach to save a stray dog on the road which has taken toll in the matter. It is not indicated anywhere that the vehicle was in a high speed or was being driven negligently. 4. The crucial point involved in the matter is about the liability of the Insurance Company. The policies are at Exhs.65, 66 and 67. The learned Judge had an occasion also to verify the motor guideline version, 2007 (G.R.No.36 at Exh.68). 5.On analytical study of the policy, learned Judge found that the premium of five persons, including driver was already paid. This is even not disputed by the appellant. Since the deceased was travelling along with owner or the insured, as he was his friend, it is difficult to digest that he was not covered under the policy. There is no evidence from the Insurance Company or from any circumstance based on the document that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger as prescribed under the Statute. The policy, as could be seen, was a comprehensive policy. In the absence of there being a contract contrary 3 to the liability of the insurance company, I do not see the learned Judge was at fault in drawing the award and fixing the liability to the appellant Insurance Company. 6. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Civil Application disposed of. 7. The amount remitted in this Court be sent over to the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/fa830-09