1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of claim petition No.47 of 2007, which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Beed. The Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and only on that point the decision is challenged by the original respondent No.1, owner. Heard learned counsels for the appellant, owner and Insurance Company. Learned counsel for claimants was also heard.
2. The accident took place on 5.2.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. on Padalsingi-Pathardi Road, within the jurisdiction of Chaklamba police station. Deceased was present in the minidoor bearing No.MH-23-4386. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Suresh was present in the aforesaid vehicle with his goods, as owner of goods. According to them, goods were gunny bags and wooden stumps (balli). It is contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the mini-door by its driver, respondent No.1, the vehicle turned turtle. Suresh died on the spot in the accident. Claim was made by widow aged about 29 years and four minor issues of deceased. In the present proceeding, decision is challenged only on the finding of exonerating the Insurance company from the liability. So it is not necessary to discuss other contentions and other evidence.
3. Respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle filed written statement and denied everything. Alternatively, owner contended that vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and so Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. He also contended that deceased was travelling with his goods in the tempo as owner of goods.
4. Insurance Company filed written statement and it contended that claimants need to prove their contentions. It is contended that deceased was travelling in the tempo as fair paid passenger and so Insurance Company is not liable to pay anything. Other defence in respect of absence of driving licence by the matador driver was also taken.
5. The Tribunal had framed issues in respect of aforesaid defence taken by the Insurance Company. The claimants gave evidence and they placed reliance on the police papers. The Insurance company examined its Officer Deepak. In his evidence the Insurance policy was produced and proved as Exh.76.
6. The evidence given by the claimant, widow of the deceased is as per the aforesaid contentions. The police papers are not seriously disputed. Copy of certificate of registration of offending vehicle is produced and it shows that it was registered as goods carrier. Copy of F.I.R. shows that it is of no help with regard to the aforesaid case. Copy of spot panchnama produced at Exh.60 shows that when panchnama was drawn, bags of food grains were present in the vehicle. At Exh.75 there is receipt to show that deceased had purchased two bags of food grains which were found in the vehicle.
7. In Form A there is mention of vehicle and the insurance particulars. Copy of policy at Exh.72 shows that a package policy was purchased by owner of the goods carrier and premium in respect of driver and cleaner was also paid. The evidence given by the Officer of Insurance company shows that driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence. He has only tried to show that insurance company is not liable, as passenger in the vehicle was not required to be covered under the policy.
8. The judgment delivered by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal tried to ascertain as to whether the deceased had paid charges. It is observed that there was no record produced to show that charges were paid for transporting the bags of wheat and so it was not possible to infer that he was present with the goods, as owner of goods.
9. There is substantive evidence of claimants and there is also aforesaid record and particularly the spot panchnama. The crime was registered for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. and not for any other sections, particularly under Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this circumstances, inference can easily be drawn that deceased was travelling as owner of goods, with two bags of food grains in the vehicle.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some reported cases like:-
i) AIR 2001 SC 3363 (Ramesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.)
ii) 2001 AIR SCW 3295 (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani) (Original)
iii) 2002 AIR SCW 5259 (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani) (Reference).
iv) AIR 2004 SC 1340 (National Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur)
v) AIR 2004 SC 4338 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chinnamma)
vi) AIR 2013 SC 1125 (Sanjeev Kumar Samrat vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)
vii) 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 141 (Bombay) (Balasaheb Salunkhe v. Laxmibai Jadhav)
viii) 2012 (4) Bom.C.R. 772 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashwini Gaude)
11. The Apex Court has discussed the position of law after amendment effected to Motor Vehicles Act in 1994. The Apex Court has laid down that due to the amendment, the owner of goods needs to be given cover under the statutory policy. When the policy is sold in respect of goods carrier, it needs to be presumed that policy covers risk to owner of goods and his representative. The only question which can be determined is whether deceased was present in the vehicle as owner of goods or not. If the Tribunal decides this question in favour of the claimants, then Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from making payment of compensation. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the Tribunal has committed error in not holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner. In view of the nature of policy and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the Insurance company cannot be exonerated. In the result the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
12. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is corrected for making the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable with the owner to pay compensation. The other part of the decision of the Tribunal is maintained. The award is to be prepared accordingly.