In a first appeal filed before the Gujarat High Court against a judgment and award dated 29-08-2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & ADJ, Jamnagar, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was awarded as compensation along with an interest at 9% p.a., a Single Judge Bench of Justice Mool Chand Tyagi partly allowed the petition.
On 22-01-2005, the victim was travelling in a truck along with goods owned by him. The truck driver was driving at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner when it collided with another truck, causing the death of the victim. Upon filing of a claim petition, the MACT passed the impugned award. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants filed the present appeal.
The appellants asserted that the MACT had attributed negligence to drivers of both vehicles and that the victim had died due to the composite negligence of both drivers. It was contended that the MACT had wrongly exonerated respondents 3 and 4, as it should have directed all respondents apart from the insurance company to satisfy the award. The appellants also asserted that the insurance company also ought to have satisfied the award and then be permitted to recover 50% from the truck owner.
The Court noted that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a truck and that he had succumbed to his injuries resulting from the composite negligence of both drivers. Hence, the Court said that the deceased’s legal representatives could recover compensation from any of the tortfeasors. However, it was stated that since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, no liability could be fastened on the insurer of the truck in which he was travelling, but the owner of the truck was equally liable.
Considering the decision in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2015 (9) SCC 273, the Court found it proper to direct the insurance company to satisfy the award and to recover 50% of the amount from the owner of the truck in which the deceased was travelling by filing an execution petition before the MACT.
Thus, the appeal was partly allowed.
