1. Since the present appeals are arising out of same accident, the matters are taken up for final consideration. The First Appeal No.743 of 2016 is considered as lead matter and facts are taken from the same. The matters are heard together.

2. The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.585/2003 and 586/2003, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,81,200/- and Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 21:01:50 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/743/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2024 undefined Rs.1,01,200/- respectively with 9% per annum interest to the claimant/s.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is unjust, improper and passed without looking to the facts, evidence which are face on record and the tribunal has erred in awarding the amount under various heads and thereby, erred in awarding the total amount of compensation. It is further submitted the appellant had taken a contention in a written statement that the victim was travelling as a gratuitous passenger illegally and therefore the insurance company could not have been held liable for payment of compensation at all as per the settled legal position and the claimant has not produced a single proof in order to substantiate that the victim was doing the business of milk. The claimant has also not produced any evidence on record regarding payment of rent of the said vehicle and just because certain milk cans were in the metadoor at the time of accident, the same would not mean that the said belong to the victim as well as the claimant has also not produced Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 21:01:50 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/743/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2024 undefined any proof to the effect that the said milk cans belonged to the victim. Thus on this ground alone, the claim application ought to have been rejected against the present appellant. 5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had specifically denied all the contentions raised in the claim petition and also put the claimant to the strict proof of the same. He has further submitted that even as per the RC book, the seating capacity of the vehicle in question is only two persons and that too including the driver. Therefore also the claimant was travelling illegally and hence was not entitled to get any compensation from the present appellant i.e. the insurer of the TATA 407. Therefore, learned advocate prays to allow the present appeals.

6. Learned advocate Ms. Sharmishta A. Dave submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is appropriate and interference of this Court is not required in the present appeals. However, she has submitted that if the Court finds it appropriate, then the Court may pass appropriate order.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and I have also considered the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal and considered the material available on the record. Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 21:01:50 IST 2024

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/743/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2024 undefined 7.1 Considering the liability issue, the contention raised by the insurance company is that the insurance company is not liable as the passengers were travelling in goods vehicle. However, on perusal of Panchnama of Scene of occurence, it transpires that 20 Milk canes, loaded in the vehicle Tata 407 were scattered thereof, but some were bent down, whereas some were broken down and the stock of Milk were being poured on the road. Therefore, the goods are found from the spot of the accident and the claimant/s were travelling in the vehicle in question with milk cans, as the owner of the said goods. Considering the totality of facts of circumstances and also considering the Policy, I am of the view that the contention raised by the insurance company is required to be negated.

7.2 In addition to the above, the First Appeal No.744 of 2016 is preferred essentially challenging the contributory negligence to the extent to pay liability. However, considering the smallness of amount in the First Appeal No.744 of 2016, the same is required to be dismissed.

8. In view of above, the following order is passed:

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SLOCK BAROT Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 21:01:50 IST 2024