JUDGMENT
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. All the above noted appeals are being disposed of together as a common question is involved therein with regard to the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation in respect of the death/bodily injury caused to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. The learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation in favour of various claimants have held the appellant insurance company to be liable.
2. Admittedly, the present set of cases pertains to the period after amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the year 1994. A similar question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The cases in respect of liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation in respect of the death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle came to be categorized in three categories, namely, (i) the cases falling under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; (ii) the cases falling under the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 prior to its amendment in the year 1994; and (iii) the cases falling under the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its amendment in the year 1994.
3. While considering the question of liability of the insurance company in respect of the cases falling under category (i) above, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 1565 (SC), following the ratio laid down in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 1 (SC), has held the insurance company to be not liable for compensation in the case of bodily injury/ death of the gratuitous passenger. Insofar as the cases falling under category (iii) are concerned the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the ratio laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), held the insurance company to be liable for payment of compensation in respect of bodily injury or death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle.
4. By a judgment of the same date passed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2001 ACJ 1847 (SC), the question with regard to the liability of the insurance company towards payment of compensation in respect of the death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle was referred to a larger Bench. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the case having been referred to it by the Division Bench on 3.12.2002 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), answered the question in the negative and held that the insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation in respect of bodily injury or death of gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle in respect of the cases falling prior to the amendment of 1994. The question whether the insurance company was liable in the cases pertaining to the period after amendment of 1994 was neither referred to nor decided by the larger Bench.
5. Reliance was sought to be placed by learned counsel for the appellant insurance company on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 ACJ 468 (SC), to contend that the insurance company would not be liable even in the present cases. It may be stated that the cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court pertained to the period prior to the amendment of 1994 and as such the ratio as laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of the present cases.
6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 1565 (SC), the learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant insurance company to be liable for payment of compensation in respect of the bodily injury or death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle since the cases pertain to the period after the amendment of 1994.
7. A similar view has also been taken by a learned single Judge of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanak Chand, F.A.O. No. 439 of 2003; decided on 3.12.2003.
8. As a result, all the above referred to appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. The amount of compensation lying deposited and invested in fixed deposits shall be released to concerned claimants-respondents as per their shares by remitting the same to their respective bank accounts, the particulars of which shall be supplied to the Registry by the counsel for the respondents.
Cross-objection Nos. 194, 195 and 440 of 2003:
10. These cross-objections have been preferred by the respondents-claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded. Since the appellant insurance company cannot dispute the quantum of compensation awarded, cross-objections by respondents-claimants are not maintainable as has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Pawan Kumar v. Subhash Chand, 1999 (1) SLJ 187.
