Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that in view of the case
law of Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sudamati,
[2018 (4) Mh.L.J.], Manager, Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Ajay Coudhary and Others, [(2020) ACJ 649], in
which the Maharashtra High Court and this Court had taken a view that in a
goods vehicle where there is no cabin and the deceased was traveling as a
representative of the owner, the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation. However, in this case, the offending vehicle is a Matador
having a cabin in it and, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for
the claimants is not acceptable.
Since it is not proved that the deceased was travelling on the offending
vehicle at the time of accident, therefore, the case laws of Sanjeev Kumar
Samrat (supra), Saju P. Paul (supra), Ajay Choudhary (supra) and Bhav
Singh (supra) do not help the insurance company.
15. Therefore, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, just on the basis
that, Rs.25/- has been paid as premium for LL to person for operation/
maintenance, it cannot be said that Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation. Further, from evidence on record, it is not established that at the
time of accident, deceased was employed by owner of offending vehicle for
maintenance and upkeep of offending vehicle and at the time of accident,
deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle in the same capacity. Hence, in
view of overall evidence available on record, and also having regard to zero
seating capacity of offending vehicle, in this Court's opinion, deceased was
travelling as gratuitous passenger in offending vehicle. Therefore, Insurance-
Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Further, in view of facts of the
case, in the instant case, principle of pay and recover can also not be applied,
as held in Ramayan Prasad Yadav (Supra), Cholamandalam (Supra), Manager,
Cholamandalam (Supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd (Supra).