Gujarat High Court
Abhesingh Bharatsingh Parmar vs Vankar Raijibhai Nanjibhai on 8 July, 2022
C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 565 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
ABHESINGH BHARATSINGH PARMAR
Versus
VANKAR RAIJIBHAI NANJIBHAI & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS AVANI S MEHTA(1867) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Page 1 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") vide impugned judgment and award dated 13.11.2006 passed in M.A.C.P. No.927 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.02.2003 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased Bharatsinh Dahyabhai Parmar was travelling in a Tempo bearing registration No.GJ-07-Y-4697, after paying rent from Savli to Gokulpura. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased reached at Gandiyapura at that time due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said tempo, the same turned turtle, as a result of which the accident took place. On account of the accident, the deceased had sustained fatal injury. Hence, the appellant - original claimant has filed aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- under the different heads as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
Page 2 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month. He has submitted that the independent witness examined at Exhibit 23 wherein he has deposed that deceased was earning Rs.75/- to Rs.150 daily and on that basis the Tribunal has to considered Rs.3000/- per month income. He has submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the tempo i.e. vehicle involved in the accident and, therefore, there is clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability. He has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
Page 3 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022
6. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is that the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay the compensation in the case were the father of the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle. The case of the claimant that the deceased was travelling with the goods in a tempo on the date of accident from Savli to Gokulpura on paying rent. For that they have examined Vijaykumar Kanchanbhai Patel at Exhibit 23 as an independent witness to the effect that he has seen the injured on the road and he has also seen that there was one gunny bag lying on the road. From the evidence of Vijaykumar at Exhibit 23, it appears that there is no whisper about the said goods is of the ownership of the deceased or not. Shri Abhesinh Bharatsinh Parmar examined at Exhibit 15. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the incident. He has no knowledge that his father was travelling with the goods in the vehicle or not and how the accident occurred. Considering the unreported and reported decisions in the case of - (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Minor Mahesh Kanubhai dated 07.04.2014 rendered in First Appeal No.710 of 2008 and allied appeals, (2) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lilaben W/o. Decd.
Bhikhabhai Premjibhai Kathiriya dated 18.11.2013 rendered in Page 4 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 First Appeal No.2121 of 2008, (3) Bachubhai Gopalbhai Dana Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others dated 08.06.2017 rendered in First Appeal No.2032 of 2007 and allied appeals, (4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (Hub) Vs. Laxmiben Lakhabhai Gadhavi and others darted 12.01.2017 rendered in First Appeal No.458 of 2011, (5) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sumitraben Mangabhai Vasava Decd. Thr' Heirs and others dated 09.03.2016 rendered in First Appeal No.3274 of 2005 and allied appeals, (6) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 554, (7) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed haji Abdulla Decd. Through The Lrs and others dated 19.02.2016 rendered in First Appeal No.3936 of 2009 and (8) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Lilaben Sursangbhai and others dated 22.02.2012 rendered in First Appeal No.2595 of 2002 and allied appeals, this Court is of the opinion that the gratuitous passenger sitting in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable.
7. In the case of Minor Mahesh Kanubhai (supra), this Court has observed in paragraphs No.54, 55and 56 as under:-
54. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant - insurance companies to be jointly Page 5 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants after coming to the conclusion that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner, in view of the fact that the victims were gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle. While it is true that the Claims Tribunal has in the body of the judgment permitted the insurance company to recover the amount paid towards compensation from the owner after treating the award as a decree in favour of the insurance company, in view of the fact that the passengers were gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle, the provisions of sub-
section (4) and (5) of section 149 of the Act would not be attracted and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal had no power to issue such directions to the insurance company to first pay and thereafter recover the amount from the owner.
55. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed to the following extent. The impugned awards passed by the Claims Tribunal in all the appeals shall stand modified to the extent that instead of the opponents being jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded under the said award, it shall be only the driver and the owner of the vehicle who shall be so liable and the insurance company shall stand exonerated from such liability.
56. A perusal of the record reveals that in First Appeals No.710/2007 to 713/2007, the entire awarded amount has been deposited with the Claims Tribunal. However, no amount appears to have been disbursed to the claimants. The appellant - insurance company shall be entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by it with the interest that may have accrued thereon. The Claims Tribunal is accordingly, directed to release the balance amount lying in the fixed deposit in favour of the insurance company within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all accrued interest. There shall be no order as to costs. 58. In First Appeal No.3852/2008, it appears that the insurance company had deposited the awarded amount before the Claims Tribunal and vide order dated 24th September, 2008, this court had directed the Claims Tribunal to pay 30% thereof to the claimant - Mahendrabhai by Account Payee Cheque and had directed the rest of the amount to be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank in the name of the claimant initially for a period of three years with cumulative interest with periodical renewal till the appeal is finally decided by the court. Insofar as the amount which is lying with the Claims Tribunal is concerned, the appellant - insurance company Page 6 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 shall be entitled to refund thereof together with the interest that may accrue thereon. The respondent No.1 - claimant is directed to return the amount received by him pursuant to the interim order passed by this court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as it is well-settled law that any interim order passed in an appeal will necessarily abide by the final result of the appeal and as and when the claimant so deposits the amount, the Claims Tribunal shall release it in favour of the insurance company. Meanwhile, the Claims Tribunal is directed to release the balance amount lying in the fixed deposit in favour of the insurance company within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all accrued interest. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. In the case of Lilaben Wd/o. Bhikhabhai Premjibhai Kathiriya (supra), this Court has observed in para-16 as under:-
16. It appears that pursuant to an interim order earlier passed in this appeal, the Insurance Company has deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal below has already permitted the claimants to withdraw 30% of the amount deposited by the appellant and balance 70% is lying in deposit in the Tribunal in a fixed deposit. This appeal being allowed, I direct the claimants to return the amount received pursuant to the interim order within three months from today as it is well-
settled law that any interim order passed in an appeal will necessarily abide by the final result of the appeal and as and when the claimant so deposits the amount, the Tribunal shall release it in favour of the Insurance Company. Meanwhile, the Tribunal is directed to release the balance amount lying in the Fixed Deposit in favour of the Insurance Company within two months from today with all accrued interest. No Costs.
9. In the case of Laxmiben Lakhabhai Gadhavi (supra), this Court has observed in para - 6, 7 and 8 as under:-
6. The Supreme Court in the case of New India Page 7 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Asha Rani and Ors (2003) 2 SCC 223 has held as under in para 9 :
"9. In Satpal's case (supra), the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amended Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46 of Act 6 of 1991 by which expression 'injury to any person' in the original Act stood substituted by the expression 'injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle' the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression 'to any person' it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also states that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the Insurance Policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression 'including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the Page 8 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 pre-existed expression 'injury to any person' is either clarificatory or amplification of the preexisting statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal's case, therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury."
7. The Supreme Court subsequently followed it in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Brij Mohan and ors (2007) 7 SCC 56.
8. The aforesaid proposition of law expounded by the Supreme Court makes it vividly clear that Insurance Company would not be liable to pay compensation in case where the victim was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. I am, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability of payment of compensation on the appellant-Insurance company as the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, therefore is required to be entertained to a limited extent of exonerating appellant-Insurance company from its liability of payment of compensation to the claimants.
10. In the case of Sumitraben Mangabhai Vasava (supra), this Court has observed in paras no.7 to 9 as under:-
7. The issue involved in these appeals is no more res Page 9 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 integra. It is by now well settled legal position of law that once learned Tribunal founds a person travelling in goods carriage vehicle as pasenger and not as an owner of goods or its representative, in such situation, insurer of goods carriage vehicle is not liable to pay compensation and learned Tribunal cannot fasten the liability upon the insurer to pay compensation and then to recover it from its insured. On going through the particulars of the policy, it is noticed that no additional premium is being levied by the Insurance company for coverage of risk of any passenger travelling upon the vehicle involved in the accident. The risk of passenger travelling in goods carriage vehicle is not covered under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Act has not envisaged risk of passenger to be covered under Section 147 of the said Act and law in this regard has been declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Asha Rani (supra) and reiterated in other decisions. It is an admitted fact that injured claimants were travelling as passengers in order to attend marriage party from Kundiamba to Navagam in the said goods carriage vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company. This fact is clearly forthcoming even from the respectief petitions which came to be filed by the claimant wherein they have clearly mentioned that they were travelling upon the aforesaid Tempo as passengers to attend the marriage party alongwith their goods. The same fact have been narrated in their respective affidavits which came to be filed during the course of adducing oral evidence. In the cross examination, all claimants have admitted taht they were passengers who were travelling upon the aforesaid goods carriage in order to attend the marrige party.
8. FIR produced at Exh: 49 also discloses that soon after the accident one Navalbhai Vasva resident of navagam, Taluka Dediapada, District Narmada, lodged complaint before the Police indicating that the marriage of his son Suresh was scheduled on 24th May, 1998, and he had hired tempo No.GJ-9-V-1639 for attending marriage party at Navagam. While they were travelling upon the aforesaid tempo, the driver was driving in a very hectic speed and in the result, tempo turned turtle and they sustained inujuries.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual position and in light of the pleadings came to be made by the respective claimants and in light of the affidavit filed by the respective claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant - Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the learned Tribunal has committed error of law in directing the appellant - Insurance Company to deposit the awarded Page 10 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 amount and then to be recovered from its insured - owner of the goods carriage vehicle.
11. In the case of Savitri Devi and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paras-8 to 13 as under:-
8. After having gone through the award of the Claims Tribunal and the judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we are not able to understand as to how it has been found that the Appellant-Insurance Company can still be held liable to pay the amount of compensation as there has been a categorical finding by both the Courts recording that the vehicle in question was insured only as "Goods carrying Vehicle". The custom of carrying barat in the village on the said truck will not be sufficient to hold the Appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Admittedly, Appellant-Insurance Company would not know unless the accident takes place as to for what purpose the vehicle in question was being used. The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy are very clear and categorical and it creates a specific bar on carrying of any passengers, except the employees other than the driver, not exceeding six (6) in number, who should also come under the purview of Workman's Compensation Act.
9. The specific case of the claimants was that the barat was being taken in the said open truck on 12.11.1996 when the accident had taken place. Thus, according to us, it clearly violates the terms and conditions of the policy.
10. Dealing with similar circumstance, this Court has held in ACJ 2005 (2) 721 titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Bommithi Subbhayamma and others" as under: (SCC p.246, paras 9-11)
9.... ....20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in 5 respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.
10. The same view was reiterated in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC); Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Page 11 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 Begum, 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC) and also in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC).
11. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. This Appeal is allowed. We, however, make it clear that the claimants-respondents will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation granted in their favour by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.
11. Similar view has been reiterated in (2009) 2 SCC 75, titled as "National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani and others", paragraph 14 and 15 of which are reproduced hereunder:
14. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the is or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lay would still be liable to produce direct evidence to establish that the deceased and the injured passengers were gratuitous passengers.
15. As indicated hereinbefore, the First Information Report as such may or may not be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a finding in regard to the question raised by the Appellant herein, but, when the First Information Report itself has been made a part of the claim petition, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the same can be looked into for the aforementioned purpose.
12. In light of the aforesaid judgments, we have no doubt in our minds that the impugned judgment and order of teh learned Single Judge dated 28.7.2005 cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside and quashed. No liability can be fastened on teh Appellat - Insurance Company. The appeals of teh Appellant - Insurance Company are allowed to this extent.
13. However, it is clarified that if any amount has already been paid by the Insurance Company, it shall not be permissible for it to recover the amount from the claimants. It is also clarified that the claimants, in any case, would be entitled to recover the balance amount of the compensation awarded to them vide impugned judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.7.2005 from the estate of the deceased owner. The appeals are allowed to this extent. The award and the finding of the learned Single Judge fastening the liability on the Appellant - Insurance Company is set aside. The parties to bear their own costs.
Page 12 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022
12. In the case of Mohammed Haji Abdulla Decd. Through The Lrs and others (supra), this Court has observed in para-10 and 11 as under:-
"10. Now, so far as impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal holding insurer liable to pay compensation is concerned, it is required to be noted that though learned Tribunal has specifically observed and held that deceased was traveling as gratuitous passenger on the goods vehicles at the time of accident, learned Tribunal has held insurer liable to pay compensation solely on the ground that the original claim petition has been filed under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid cannot be sustained. In light of the observations made herein above and considering Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it is held that insurer can raise statutory defence which may be available to it under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and once it is held that the deceased was traveling as gratuitous passenger on the goods vehicle at the time of accident considering the subsection(2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation as in such a situation the insurer can avoid the liability to pay the compensation as the insurer is not statutorily liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger on the goods vehicle at the time of accident.
10.1 Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant
- insurer liable to pay the compensation or indemnify the award cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award in so far as holding the appellant - insurer - original opponent no.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited liable to pay the compensation to the original claimants for the death of deceased is hereby quashed and set aside. On allowing the present appeal and quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as appellant Insurance Company is concerned, the appellant Insurance Company is concerned, Page 13 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022 C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022 the appellant Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back the amount which the appellant had deposited pursuant to the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. However, it is required to be noted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 5.10.2009 passed in Civil Application No. 10896 of 2009 in First Appeal No. 3936 of 2009 the original claimant no.1 - Manjulaben wd/o Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai Rohit (Chamar) was permitted to withdraw 30% of the amount and rest of the amount was directed to be invested in the name of original claimants in any Nationalized Bank but FDRs shall remain with Nazir of Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad City, which require periodical renewal till First Appeal is decided by this Court and the original claimant no.1 - Manjulaben wd/o Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai Rohit (Chamar) was allowed to receive the monthly interest from the said FDR. By now more than 7 years have passed and original claimant no.1 - Manjulaben wd/o Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai Rohit (Chamar) must have spent entire 30% which was permitted to withdraw and even periodical interest for their maintenance, it is observed that amount already withdrawn by the original claimants may not be recovered from them by the Insurance Company, however interest shall be entitled to get back the said amount from the owners of the vehicle involved in the accident. However, the appellant - Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back remaining amount from the Fixed Deposit Receipts lying with the Nazir of the Tribunal which were directed to be invested in the name of original claimants and which were directed to be kept in the Nazir, Ahmedabad City, without filing Execution Petition and the Tribunal is directed to pay the said amount to the appellant
- Insurance Company on production of certified copy of the present judgment and order. With this, present appeal is allowed. No costs.
13. It is the case of the respondent that the deceased was travelling in tempo which is a goods carriage vehicle and, therefore, liability cannot be fastened on it and the order of the pay and recover ought not to have been passed by the Tribunal.
Page 14 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022C/FA/565/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2022
14. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the decisions cited at the bar and the record and proceedings the case, I am of the view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the extent.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 13.11.2006 passed in M.A.C.P. No.927 of 2003 is hereby confirmed. The appellant - original claimant is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the orignial owner and driver as awarded by the Tribunal by way of appropriate proceedings.
There shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 15 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 20:05:07 IST 2022