FA/924/1989 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 924 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s) Versus SARSANBEN WD/O MADHAJI & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. MR CH VORA for Defendant(s) : 5 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 14/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.06.1989 passed by the M.A.C.T. (Main), Kutch – Bhuj in M.A.C. Petition No. 98 of 1986 whereby, the FA/924/1989 2/5 JUDGMENT claim petition was partly allowed and the opponents therein were jointly and severally held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization to the claimants. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 On 16.07.1985, at around 2130 hrs., deceased – Mahajee Sukhdan Gadhvi was travelling in a Truck bearing registration No. GTY – 6642, driven by respondent no. 5 herein, from Dayapar to Kapurasi. As the said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, respondent no. 5 lost control over it and consequently, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle. The deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital. 2.2 The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest. Hence, this Appeal. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Truck. Under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Truck” has been FA/924/1989 3/5 JUDGMENT defined as a vehicle not meant for carrying passengers. Otherwise also, it is a matter of common knowledge that Truck is not meant for carrying passengers and therefore, whosoever takes a ride on it shall be doing so at his own risk. If some unfortunate event takes place while travelling in such vehicle, then neither the driver of the Truck nor its owner could be held liable to pay compensation. Further, if the Truck is insured with the Insurance Company, then no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company for the death or injuries sustained in the accident. 4.0 The aforesaid principle has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manjulaben Purshottamdas Patel & ors. reported in 1994 (1) G.L.R. pg. 269 wherein, it has been held that if an accident takes place while travelling in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation for the death or injuries sustained in the said accident. 4.1 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tarawati and others reported in 1994 A.C.J. pg. 822, by the Apex Court in Mallawwa & ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. reported in 1999 A.C.J. 1, Ramashray Singh v. New India FA/924/1989 4/5 JUDGMENT Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors reported in J.T. 2003 (6) S.C. pg. 97 and in a recent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnama and others reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. pg. 4338 cases. 5.0 In above view of the matter, it is amply clear that a “Truck” is a “goods vehicle” and, therefore, the appellant - Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay the compensation. Hence, it has to be concluded that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation since the vehicle involved in the accident is a “goods vehicle”, i.e. Truck. Hence, the impugned award of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6.0 In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T. (Main), Kutch – Bhuj in M.A.C. Petition No. 98 of 1986 is quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that if the amount in question is already withdrawn by the claimants, then the same will not be recovered from them but, it shall be open to the appellant – Insurance Company to recover the same from the Owner of the Truck in question. But, if the amount is lying with the Tribunal, then the same will be refunded to the appellant forthwith and the claimants could recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question. With the FA/924/1989 5/5 JUDGMENT above clarification, the Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (K. S. JHAVERI, J.) Pravin/*