(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. 3158 OF 2009 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Divisional Office, .. Appellant Divisional Manager, (Original United India Insurance Company, respondent Aurangabad. no.2 ) versus 1. Ashabai alias Rukmin w/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Kendrewadi, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. 2. Ganga D/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 16 years, Occupation : Education. 3. Chandrabhaga D/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 14 years, Occupation : Education. 4. Meera D/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 11 years, Occupation : Education. 5. Mandakini D/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 8 years, Occupation : Education. (2) 6. Rushikesh s/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 7 years, Occupation : Education. 7. Suvarnamala D/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 4 years, Occupation : Nil. 8. Rameshwar s/o. Bhagwan Gaike, Age : 2 years, Occupation : Nil. Claimant Nos.2 to 8 u/g. of Ashabai alias Rukmin W/o. Bhagwan Gaike, R/o. as above. 9. Ashok s/o. Govindrao Hulgunde, Age : Major, Occupation : Auto Rickshaw owner, R/o. Hamalgali, .. Respondents Mangalwarpeth, Ambajogai, (Nos.1 to 8 - District : Beed. - Original claimants & 10. Sopan s/o. Nivruti Gayke, Nos.9 & 10 - Age : Major, - Original respondent Shri V.D. Shinde, Nos.1 & 3 ) Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kendrewadi, Taluka : Ambajogai. ....................... Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Shelke, Advocate, holding for Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 10. ........................ (3) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 10. 2. The challenge by the appellant, Insurance Company, is to the award dated 18-8-2007 recorded by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 71/2006. 3. On hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the only point that crept in, is, "whether the appellant, Insurance Company, could be fasten with the liability to meet the award ?". 4. My finding to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons. 5. In an unfortunate accident, the deceased along with his wife, the claimant and others, while travelling in a pick up auto van (a goods vehicle under R.T.O. Rules), met with the (4) accident. The deceased lost his life. One applicant, Subhash, was also travelling at the material time in the vehicle. He too filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 75/2007, decided only against the owner of the vehicle in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 75/2007. 6. The factual matrix proved by the wife of the deceased (the claimant) illustrate, that 5 - 6 persons were travelling in the auto-rickshaw to attend a marriage. It could not be a valid travel in the vehicle which was meant for a specific purpose. The driver has also faced the consequences by suffering Crime No. 110/2006 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Parli (Gramin). There is no controversy about the death of deceased Bhagwan occurred due to the accident which was met with the vehicle. However, the fact remains, travel of the deceased or travel of the vehicle / auto-rickshaw was not in tune and terms of the insurance policy. The betrayal of the policy, naturally not legally enforce any indemnification or liability to meet the award. To this effect, the finding recorded by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal warrants interference. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award against the appellant, Insurance Company, is dismissed. It will (5) remain in tact against original respondent no.1, Ashok, as has been done by the learned Judge. No costs. The amount deposited by the appellant, Insurance Company, be remitted. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/fa3158