JUDGMENT
Mohammed, J.
1. These appeals are from the common award passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Trivandrum dated 31-12-1990 in O. P. (M.V.) Nos. 1073/86, 869/86, 1081/86, 1082/86, 1068/86, 1077/86, 1071/86, 1080/86, 1076/86, 1074/86, 870/86, 1079/86, 868/86, 1075/86 and 1072/86 respectively. The common appellant in all these appeals is M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Alwaye.
2. The above claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the death or personal injuries, as the case may be, arising out of the accident which took place on 13-7-1986. The vehicle
involved in the accident was a lorry bearing registration number KRF 2207 which was capsized into a ditch on the western side of the road at a place called ‘Singili Edapalayam’. As a result of this accident loading workers travelling in the lorry sustained serious injuries. More than twenty workers sustained injuries and three died. The injured persons as also the legal heirs of the deceased filed petitions claiming compensation for the injuries or death, as the case may be. The Tribunal considered the claim petitions individually and passed a common award awarding compensation in each case.
3. Appeal number and claim petition number, nature of claim, amount claimed and amount awarded are tabulated hereunder :
Appeal number &
Claim
petition No.
Nature of claim
Amount claimed
Amount awarded
MFA No. 833/92
OP (MV) 1073/86
Injury
30,000
5,100
MFA No 838/92
OP(MV)869/86
Death
1,50,000
1,15,000
MFA No. 847/92
OP (MV) 1081/86
Injuries
1,00,000
17,000
MFA No 850/92
OP(MV) 1082/86
Injuries
1,00,000
39,600
MFA No. 851/92
OP (MV) 1068/86
Injuries
30,000
16,750
MFA No 852/92
OP(MV) 1077/86
Injuries
60,000
40,000
MFA No. 853/92
OP (MV) 1071/86
Injuries
30,000
6,750
MFA No 868/92
OP(MV) 1080/86
Death
1,00,000
62,200
MFA No. 869/92
OP (MV) 1076/86
Injury
50,000
23,750
MFA No 894/92
OP(MV) 1074/86
Injuries
10,000
4,100
MFA No. 895/92
OP (MV) 870/86
Death
1,50,000
96,750
MFA No 896/92
OP(MV) 1079/86
Injuries
1,00,000
32,500
MFA No. 906/92
OP (MV) 868/86
Injuries
1,00,000
18,400
MFA No 922/92
OP(MV) 1075/86
Injuries
40,000
20,000
MFA No. 566/92
Injuries
30,000
4,100
Total award
Rs.
5,02,000
4. The Tribunal framed three common issues for decision in all these cases. Those issues were:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry?
2. Whether the third respondent was liable to pay compensation?
3. What, if any, is the compensation payable and by whom?
On the first issue the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rashness of the driver of the lorry KEF 2207. As there is no dispute with regard to this conclusion, it has become final and conclusive.
5. The Tribunal considered the second common issue and found that the permit was given to the vehicle to carry only six persons and that there were more than twenty persons travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High court in 1990 Ace CJ 539 (Kannekanti Varamma v. Puli Ramalootaiah) for the position that even though the goods vehicle used for the purpose for which permit was issued it carried more than six workers for loading and unloading and in such case also the insurance company would be liable if they sustained injuries in the accident. The Tribunal found that the workers travelled in the lorry were third parties and therefore the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. It further found that the maximum liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-in each case. On the basis of the above findings the insurer was directed to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation awarded.
6. In the appeals, counsel for the appellant contended that the workers in the lorry were gratuitous passengers and not carried in pursuance of a contract of employment. He further contended that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent provided in Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and as contained in Ext. R1 policy. As against these contentions the ‘counsel for the claimants submitted that having admitted or found that the persons who travelled in the lorry were third parties as also gratuitous passengers the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner for the compensation awarded. In support of this position, strong reliance was placed on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, AIR 1998 SC 1433. That was a case coming under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 like the one that we have with us now. In that case the Supreme Court after extracting Section XX(1)(a) contained in the policy which in effect provides that the insurer shall become legally liable to pay in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person held thus :
“Thus under Section II 1 (a) of the policy the insurer has agreed to indemnify the Insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to ‘any person’. The expression ‘any person’ would undoubtedly Include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. The remaining part of Clause (a) relates to cases of death or injury arising out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. In such cases the liability of the insurer is only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Act. In so far as gratuitous passengers are concerned there is no limitation in the policy as such. Hence under the terms of the policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed by favour of the claimant.”
7. What was involved in the above case before the Supreme Court was a comprehensive policy and vehicle, a motor car. The common insurance policy involved in all these cases was produced by the appellant in O.P. No. 868 of 1986 as is evident from para 6 of the written statement and marked as Ext. B1. It was a commercial vehicles comprehensive policy arid comprehensive premium of Rs. 3,756/- had been collected and the limit of liability under Section II (1) specified was Rs. 1,50,000/- Now let us examine the provisions contained in Section II (1) of Ext. Bl policy which provides for ‘Liabilities to third parties’. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder :
“Section II — Liabilities to Third Parties :
1. Subject to the limits of liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant’s cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of-
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including
the loading and/or unloading of the Motor Vehicle
(ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle.”
The above terms of the policy are substantially the same as involved in Amrit Lal Sood’s case (supra),
8. The vehicle involved in the motor accident on hand is admittedly a goods vehicle authorised to carry six persons. The finding of the Tribunal is that the persons travelled in the vehicle are third parties. This finding is final and conclusive. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle and hence gratuitous passengers travelled in such vehicle cannot be treated as third parties. It cannot be said so in all situations inasmuch as it depends on the terms of policy governing the vehicle. As pointed out above. Section II (1)(i) contained in the present policy takes death of or bodily injury to ‘any person’ caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle. A gratuitous occupant of the vehicle may come within its scope. The decision in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 1735 was distinguished in Amrit Lal Sood’s case, AIR 1998 SC 1433 by the Supreme Court as below :
The High Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 745 : AIR 1977 SC 1735. That judgment was based upon the relevant clause in the insurance policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act. That decision will have no bearing in the present case inasmuch as the terms of the policy here are wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle.”
In Smt. Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 589 the Supreme Court observed :
“Thus, to find out whether an insurer would be liable to indemnify an owner of a goods vehicle in a case of the present nature, the mere fact that the passenger was carried for hire or reward would not be enough, it shall have to be found out as to whether he was the owner of the goods, or an employee
of such an owner, and then whether there were more than six persons in all in the goods vehicle and whether the goods vehicle was being habitually used to carry passengers. The position would thus become very uncertain and would vary from case to case. Production of such result would not be conducive to the advancement of the object sought to be achieved by requiring a compulsory insurance policy.”
What we are dealing with here is a beneficial legislation as a social security measure. We cannot obliterate the object of the legislation by giving a narrow interpretation. In this case we are of the view that the present appeals can be disposed of in view of the following factual situation involved in these cases.
9. Out of the fifteen claimants it is practically impossible for us to find out who are the six loading workers admittedly covered by the insurance policy. The names of such workers are not incorporated in the policy. The written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company does not contain the names and details of such loading workers. The Assistant Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as DW-1 and he had deposed that the policy would cover six persons but he had not supplied the names and details of such persons. Thus the appellant admits that they are liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation awarded for six persons who are authorised to travel in the vehicle. That means, the appellant is liable for the compensation to six persons out of the fifteen claimants. Thus the total compensation payable by them is Rs. 9,00,000/- (1,50,000 x 6 = 9,00,000). As pointed out above, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions taken together would come to Rs. 5,02,000/-. Thus it can be seen that the amount of total compensation payable to all the claimants does not exceed the overall liability of the insurer, namely, Rs. 9,00,000/-. In the aforesaid factual premise we do not propose to interfere with the common award impugned herein, passed by the Tribunal. This is the only feasible method which we can adopt in this case in view of the dearth of the relevant materials required for decision.
10. The impugned award is confirmed and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs. No merits in cross-objections and hence dismissed.