- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 196 of 1996 PANNA LAL V/S KALU (2) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 195 of 1996 PANNA LAL V/S MANIA & ORS (3) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 399 of 1996 PANNA LAL V/S KANA & ORS (4) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 400 of 1996 PANNA LAL V/S SHANTI LAL Mr. ANUJ SAHLOT for Mr. MRIDUL JAIN, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RK MEHTA, Mr. DHANPAT CHOUDHARY, Mr. BHARAT DADHICH & Mrs. DIPIKA VYAS, for the respondent Date of Order : 8.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dungarpur, dated 21.3.95. The appellant is the owner. - 2 - The facts of the case are, that on 11.5.89, the victims were traveling in jeep no.5068, being driven by Parbat Singh, and belonging to the appellant. When the jeep was negotiated an up-gradient, due to negligent driving, the left wheel went off, and jeep fell down in the pit, resulting into the victims sustaining injuries. Five claim petitions were filed. The owner contested the claims, on the ground, that it was a case of mechanical brake down, as the brake pipe had suddenly burst, resulting into failure of brakes. It was also contended, that the defendant No.2 has sold the jeep to defendant No.3, who in turn had sold it to defendant No.4. The learned Tribunal deciding issue No.1 found, that it was a case of mechanical brake down, and cannot be said to be an out come of negligent driving of the jeep. Then deciding issue No.2, it was found, that the claimants can be awarded amounts, admissible to them, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the basis of no fault liability. Then examining the question of liability of the insurer, it was found, that the jeep was registered for private use, and the victims were traveling as passengers for hire or reward, and therefore, insurance company was held to be not liable. Assailing the impugned judgment it was contended, - 3 - that the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated, as there is no evidence to show, that the victims were traveling for hire or reward, rather the findings of Tribunal is out come of pure conjecture, as the learned Tribunal has concluded this, simply because the victims are not shown to be the relatives, or the owner, of the jeep, and that it doesn't look possible, that anybody would give gratuitous lift to so many persons. Then it was also contended, that the amount awarded on no fault liability basis is also excessive, as the accident in the present case relates to 11.5.89, and according to law, as it then prevailed, the amount awardable under Section 140, for permanent disability, was only Rs.12,500/-. Learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand submits, that now the law has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, to the effect, that even for gratuitous passengers in the private vehicle, the insurance company cannot be held liable, and therefore, even if this finding is ignored, that the victims were traveling as passengers for hire or reward, and they are found to be gratuitous passengers, still the insurance company cannot be held liable. Then learned counsel for the claimant submitted, that so far the amount of compensation, awardable under no fault liability is concerned, the provisions of Section 140 - 4 - is a welfare legislation, and the amount awardable on the date of award, could be awarded, and therefore, has rightly been awarded. I have considered the submissions. In my view, so far the liability of insurance company is concerned, in view of the recent judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Smt. Thokchom Ongbi Sangeet @ Sangi Devi & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in JT 2007(12) SC 279, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors reported in JT 2007(12) SC- 319, and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Vriyal & Ors., reported in JT 2007(5) SC 65, the insurance company is not liable for death or bodily injury to even the gratuitous passenger in the private vehicle, as risk to such person is not required to be covered under Section 147, and it is not shown, that any extra cover was obtained. As such, though for different reasons, however, I am at one with the conclusion, that the insurance company could not be held liable. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, in my view, the provisions of Section 140 are in the nature of substantive provision, and the rights of the parties get crystallised, on the date when the accident occurs, obviously, the amounts can be awarded only to the extent, - 5 - as was permissible by law, as it prevailed on the date of the accident, unless of course, the amendment is made retrospective, expressly, or by necessary implication, by the Parliament, which is not shown to have been so made. Similar view has already been taken by this Court, in the case of NIC Vs. Heera, reported in 1999 RLW 368. According to the provisions of section 140, as they prevailed at the time of accident, the limit of amount awardable was Rs.12,500/-. Accordingly, the amount awarded under Section 140 is required to be reduced to Rs.12,500/-. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part, and while maintaining, that insurance company is not liable, the amount awarded under Section 140, is reduced to Rs.12,500/-. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/