FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2009 National Insurance Company Ltd ......Appellant Versus Chand Ram and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 7 appeals i.e. FAO Nos.304, 305 and 307 to 311 of 2007, as all the appeals have arisen out of one consolidated award passed in 7 claim petitions which have arisen out of the same accident. Since in these appeals a common ground on a common question of law at the instance of Insurance Company has been raised, all these appeals are disposed of by one single judgment. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that on 25.11.2004, the respondent-claimants Chand Ram, Jagbir Singh, Satbir Singh, Hari Chand, Smt. Kaptan @ Kaptani and Dalip Singh (deceased) & Om Parkash (deceased) were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.HR-22C-6896 which was being driven by Sumit Kumar-respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and respondent No.2 lost his control over the jeep resulting into an accident. As a result of this accident, the injured-claimants and other persons i.e Dalip Singh & Om Parkash etc. sitting in the jeep sustained multiple injuries on various part of their bodies. Om Parkash succumbed to the injuries on 4.12.2004. Dalip FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) 2 Singh was provided treatment but on 26.11.2005 he also succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in this accident. Thus, compensation was claimed in claim petitions (i.e. MACT Case No.16, 18, 19, 21, 22 of 2005) by the claimants on account of injuries suffered by them and in claim petitions i.e. MACT No.17 & 20 of 2005 on account of death of Om Parkash & Dalip Singh who succumbed to injuries suffered by them in the aforesaid motor vehicle accident. Upon notice, respondent No.2 contested the claim submitting that no accident took place due to any rash and negligent driving on his part. Respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.7.2005. The appellant also contested the claim petitions by filing written statement submitting therein that the petitions were in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The authenticity of the driving licence of respondent No.2 was also questioned. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2-Sumit Kumar resulting in injuries to Chand Ram, Smt. Kaptan @ Kaptani, Hari Chand, Satbir and Jagbir and death of Dalip Singh and Om Parkash. In all these claim petitions, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the respondent-claimants on the basis of the evidence adduced by them. The quantum so assessed by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the appellants in these appeals. The Tribunal also found from evidence on record that the offending vehicle was duly insured and the respondent-Sumit Kumar was holding a valid licence at the time of accident. However, it was argued on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as the Insurance Policy was issued FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) 3 for goods carrying commercial vehicles whereas at the time of alleged occurrence, the said vehicle was carrying passengers unauthorisedly. The Tribunal returned a finding that the injured claimants as well as deceased were travelling in goods vehicle along with their goods as owners and accordingly, it was held that the Insurance Company could not escape from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company in these appeals has vehemently argued that the Insurance Company was not liable for the gratuitous passengers/unauthorized passengers travelling in goods carrier and thus, the offending vehicle was being used in violation to the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it was carrying 25/30 unauthorized gratuitous passengers. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.V. Jayadevappa and another v. Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. and others 2005 ACJ 1801 to contend that in a case of goods vehicle which is not authorized to carry passengers, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for death/injury to passengers travelling in such a vehicle. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute with the proposition of law to the effect that the Insurance Company is not liable for the gratuitous passengers/unauthorized passengers travelling in a goods carrier. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has returned a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence that the injured claimants (including Om Parkash & Dalip Singh since deceased) were travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and not as unauthorized passengers/gratuitous passengers. Learned counsel appearing on behalf FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) 4 of the appellant was unable to point out any material evidence to controvert the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the tribunal and in fact was unable to challenge the aforesaid finding of fact. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Company was liable to pay compensation to the owners of the goods travelling in the goods carrier as per the policy. Thus, in view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal which could not be challenged successfully by the learned counsel for the appellant, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. August 11, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.304 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: .2008 National Insurance Company Ltd ......Appellant Versus Chand Ram and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.