Surjit Singh, J.@mdashThis appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 18th May, 2005 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by which compensation for the death of a young boy, aged about 14 years, has been awarded in favour of his parents, i.e. Respondents Hoshiar Singh (father) and Sushila Devi (mother), and the present Appellant, i.e. the insurer of the vehicle, in the accident of which the death took place, has been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation.
2. Deceased was travelling by a Jeep, which was meant for carriage of goods, on 4th December, 2003. Vehicle met with an accident, in which the deceased died. Petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Owner of the vehicle took the plea that beddings of the members of a marriage party were being carried in the vehicle and the deceased was travelling by that vehicle to ensure the safe carriage of the bedding and, thus, he was an authorised representative of the owner(s) of the goods, being carried in the vehicle.
3. Present Appellant, which too was impleaded as Respondent, moved an application, u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was allowed. It took the plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger on board the vehicle, which was meant for carriage of goods.
4. Learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased was authorised representative of the owner of goods, being carried in the vehicle, at the time of the accident and so insurer was liable, u/s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to pay compensation. A sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- was assessed as quantum of compensation and both, the owner and the present Appellant, in its capacity as insurer, were required to satisfy the award, jointly and severally.
5. Award has been challenged on two grounds, namely the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured, as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
7. Driver of the vehicle, namely Chander Shekher appeared as RW-1 and very categorically stated that the deceased and one boy, namely Vikki, were on board the vehicle, when the accident took place. He stated that beddings of the members of the marriage party were being carried in the vehicle, at the relevant time. Vikki (RW-2) stated that he and the deceased were required by his elder brother to travel by the vehicle to ensure safe carriage of the beddings. Father of the deceased, Hoshiar Singh, who appeared as PW-2 also stated that the deceased was travelling by the vehicle to take care of the beddings, at the instance of elder brother of RW-2 Vikki. No evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the Appellant. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant to say that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger or was an unauthorized occupant of the vehicle, at the time when the accident took place.
8. As regards quantum of compensation, only a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been awarded. The deceased was a student of eighth standard. He was more than 14 years old. His father testified that he was good at studies. Taking into consideration all these facts, a compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- cannot be said to be on the higher side. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed.
