JUDGMENT
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. All these appeals filed by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle arise out of the common judgment and award dated 16.3.2005 in M.V.C. Nos. 4321 of 2002 and 493-502 of 2002 on the file of the Seventh Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, M.A.C.T.-3, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-3), (for short ‘the M.A.C.T.’).
2. The M.A.C.T. by the common judgment and award partly allowed the claim petitions of the injured and determined the compensation for injuries sustained by them in the accident involving the motor vehicle being a lorry bearing certificate of registration No. MYX 7977, driven in a rash and negligent manner. While so doing, the M.A.C.T. noticed that the claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, nevertheless in the light of the decision in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC), fastened the liability on the appellant insurer to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the insured-owner of the vehicle. The insurer aggrieved by the fastening of the liability has preferred this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant draws the attention of the court to the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC), to contend that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) does not enjoin statutory liability on the owner of the motor vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passengers travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. According to the learned Counsel, the motor vehicle in question is a goods carriage meant to carry goods and not carry passengers. The claimants having travelled in a goods carriage and sustained injuries, it is for the insured to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-insured points out to para 12 of the judgment in Pramod Kumar’s case , to contend that the appellant should pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner with out filing a suit. According to the learned Counsel, M.A.C.T. was fully justified in following the decision in Pramod Kumar’s case (supra) and fastening the initial liability on the insurer.
5. The law as regards fastening of liability on the insurer to pay compensation for injuries/death caused to passengers in a goods carriage is well settled. The Act does not provide for carrying of passengers in a goods carriage meant for carrying goods and that the owner of such a goods carriage will not be entitled to statutory indemnity against the claims by injured gratuitous passengers. The appellant cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation for the gratuitous passengers, in question. In the light of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Vedwati’s case 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC), wherein Arijit Pasayat, J., speaking for the Bench observed that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on a owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability thereto, these appeals deserve to be allowed. The M.A.C.T. was not justified in fastening the liability on the appellant.
6. In the circumstances, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. fastening the initial liability on the appellant to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the respondent-owner is set aside.
7. Registry is directed to refund forthwith the amount in deposit to the appellant.