[2025:RJ-JP:20560] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3778/2007 Vishnu Singh s/o Shri Shyam Lal, r/o Ward No.11, Andhua Patti, Hodal, District Faridabad (Haryana) ---Owner Truck No.HR 29 D 0885 ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Ram Dhakeli w/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, aged 58 years 2. Shri Deviram, s/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, aged 38 years 3. Shri Dwarika Prasad, s/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, age 36 years All appellants are residing at Mohalla Daesal, Ward No.9, Hodal, District Faridabad (Haryana) ----Respondents/Claimants 4. National Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager, Dhoolkaut, Dholpur. ---Respondent/Non-claimant For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the impugned award dated 16.05.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as "learned Tribunal") in MAC Case No.29/1994 titled as "Smt. Ram Dhakeli & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants was partly allowed and an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the date of accident, i.e. 04.09.1993, the deceased Prabhu Dayal, [2025:RJ-JP:20560] (2 of 3) [CMA-3778/2007] while sitting as a passenger in a Truck, sustained injuries and, as a result of the injury, he died. It was also pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 60 years, and the learned Tribunal, while calculating the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages, assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. While applying the multiplier of five (5), he has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. 3. Under the impugned order, while deciding Issue No.2, it has been held that since the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company but on the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and liable to be set aside by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as also the material available on the record. 6. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the deceased was travelling in the Truck as a passenger. Therefore, from the terms of policy, it is evident that there is a gross violation of the terms of policy, and it is settled law that a goods vehicle cannot be used to carry passengers. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company and fastening the liability to make compensation upon the owner cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. There is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below appears to be just and proper. Therefore, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed with no order as to costs. [2025:RJ-JP:20560] (3 of 3) [CMA-3778/2007] 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/45