JUDGMENT
Surjit Singh, J.
1. In all these ten appeals a common question, viz., whether the risk of the persons, who die or sustain injuries in the accident of a goods vehicle, is not covered by the insurance policy and hence, the appellant (insurer) is not liable to pay the compensation, had been raised.
2. Truck No. HP 49-0065, owned by respondent Sanjay Kumar, was insured with the appellant. On 21.4.1994 the said truck was carrying some passengers from Manikaran to Bhunter. It met with an accident, as a result of which some persons on board the truck as passengers, died and some other sustained injuries. The claim petitions were filed, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking award of compensation. The appellant, who was impleaded as respondent on account of its being the insurer of the truck, took the plea that the persons who died or sustain injuries were unauthorised passengers and their risk was not covered by the policy. Therefore, the liability for payment of compensation was disputed.
3. Tribunal disposed of all the claim petitions by a common award. Appellant’s plea that the risk of the persons who died or sustained injuries was not covered by the insurance policy and so it was not liable to pay any compensation, did not find favour with the Tribunal and consequently the appellant insurer was held liable to pay compensation in all the cases.
4. The appellant’s contention is that the evidence produced has not been correctly appreciated nor has the legal position been correctly understood and applied to the factual position by the Tribunal.
5. Admittedly, the persons who died or sustained injuries in the accident were on board the truck at the time when the accident took place. It is also admitted case of both the sides that the deceased and the injured were not employees of the insured. The owner of the vehicle, namely, respondent Sanjay Kumar, took the plea that the persons, who died or sustained injuries in the accident, were on board the truck as the owners of the luggage that was being carried by them in the truck.
6. The accident took place on 21.4.1994, that is to say, prior to the amendment of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994.
7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while interpreting Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1994, has held that the provision did not require the covering of the risk of any person on board a goods carrier, whether a passenger not carrying any goods or a person accompanying the goods being carried in the truck, as an owner or an authorised agent of the owner of such goods. The citation is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani . The same legal position has been reiterated by another Bench of equal strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devired by Konda Reddy . Yet another Bench of the same strength of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur , has held that the risk of passengers in a goods vehicle is not required to be statutorily covered by insurance and hence the insurer is not liable.
8. The insurance policy, that was taken by the insured, is Exh. RW 2A. Its reading shows that the policy did not cover the risk of passengers except employees not exceeding six in number, coming under the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
9. In view of the above discussed position, it is held that there was no contract of insurance between the insured, i.e., respondent Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the truck and appellant insurer, covering the risk of the persons, who died or received injuries in the accident, irrespective of the fact whether they were carrying some goods in the vehicle or were travelling just empty handed.
10. Learned Counsel for the insured-owner of the truck, placing reliance on some authorities of this High Court and other High Courts, argued that the mere proof of the fact that the deceased or the injured were unauthorised passengers was not enough for the appellant to escape its liability and that it was further required to be proved that such passengers were travelling to the knowledge of insured-owner of the truck or that he (the insured-owner of the truck) had authorised the carriage of passengers in the truck.
11. The argument has been noticed only to be rejected. The proposition advanced by learned counsel applies in cases where the insurer seeks to avoid its liability, on account of breach of any term or condition of the policy. This proposition does not apply where the policy does not cover the risk of persons who die or receive injuries in accident of the insured vehicle nor does the statute, i.e., Motor Vehicles Act, provide for covering the risk of such persons.
12. In view of the above stated position, all the appeals are allowed and the finding of the Tribunal holding insurer appellant liable to pay the compensation is set aside. However, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur , it is ordered that appellant shall first satisfy the awards and thereafter it may recover the compensation money from the insured, i.e., respondent Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the truck. And for recovery of the money from the insured, the appellant need not file a separate suit. Instead it may apply to the Tribunal for the execution of this judgment.