Judgment:
Amitava Lala, J.
1. The appellant contended before this Court Mat the vehicle in question has been used for the purpose of carrying 'Barat' on the fateful day when accident took place and 11 years- Anurag sustained injuries and expired. In the entire evidence a statement has been made by the father of the deceased that the jeep by which they were being carried was on hire. At the time of consideration of evidence, the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that no document has been produced by which it can be proved that the jeep was carrying the passengers of 'Barat' on hire. In any, event the Tribunal passed an award of compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to be paid by the owner but by making a stop-gap arrangement directed the Insurance Company to pay the said sum and recover it from the owner.
2. Mr. Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appellant -Insurance Company contended before this Court particularly in view of Civil Appeal No. 2609 of 2006 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lulu Ram and Ors.), an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court dated 9.th May 2006, that even for the gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contrail of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of the insurance to such category of people, therefore, the insurance Company cannot be directed to re-reimburse the owner of the vehicle for the loss caused to the claimant. Claimants may recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle or the driver. Me has also relied upon the decision reported in 2006 ALL. C.J. 1279 (S.C.) (United India Insurance Company Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors.) of the self same type. In both the cases we find that the gratuitous passengers were carried out by the goods vehicle. Therefore, it has been rightly held by the Supreme Court that such type of passengers travelling on the goods vehicle/dumper etc. cannot be made entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company even by way of scheme of reimbursement.
3. According to us, there is a gulf difference between the 'illegality' and condanable 'irregularity', if any. In case of illegality, whatever submission is made by Mr. Srivastava, will be an acceptable contention. But this case is falling in the category of 'irregularity' not 'illegality'. Herein the case is that the jeep was a passenger vehicle which was carrying 'Barat' not goods. Though no documentary proof of utilisation of the vehicle on hire was available, yet the Tribunal relied upon a solitary statement of the father of the deceased and fastened the owner with the liability to pay compensation and made a stop-gap arrangement by the Insurance Company with a direction of recovery. Such factum cannot be equated with the factum of the cases on which the Supreme Court delivered judgements. The Tribunal could have directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation when there was no definite proof that the vehicle was being used on hire. Neither the Tribunal passed such order nor the amount of compensation is in the higher side. Therefore, Insurance Company has not suffered any prejudice.
Hence, in totality, the appeal of the Insurance Company cannot be sustained from the judgement and award of the Tribunal. Hence, the same is dismissed without imposing any costs.
4. Incidentally the appellant Insurance Company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made, before this Court for preferring this appeal shall be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant, however, such prayer is allowed.
Shishir Kumar, J.
5. I agree.