1 - Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari S/o Ateswar Nath Tiwari, Aged About 41 Years R/o v. 1
Case Details
Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.04.07 16:43:00 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:15556 NAFR Order reserved on 30.08.2024 Order delivered on 02.04.2025 MAC No. 1431 of 2017 1 - Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari S/o Ateswar Nath Tiwari, Aged About 41 Years R/o Pathalgaon, P.S. And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Makhan Das Mahant S/o Lachhan Das Mahant, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Patarapali, P.S. And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- ----Appellants Applicant No.1 And 2 versus 1 - Smt. Mary Tirky W/o Late Prakash Tirky, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Peta, P.O. Bimda, P.S. And Tehsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anil Tirky S/o Late Prakash Tirky, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Peta, P.O. Bimda, P.S. And Tehsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pankaj Tirky S/o Late Prakash Tirky, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Peta, P.O. Bimda, P.S. And Tehsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ..............Applicants No. 1 To 3 4 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Pathalgaon, P.S., P.O. And Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.3 ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri Dilip Kumar Swain, Advocate For Respondent-4/Insurance Company --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal CAV Order 1. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned award dated 29-02-2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, Mac 1431 of 2017 2 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03/2015 whereby an amount of Rs.39,49,119/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants, and the insurance company is exonerated from payment of compensation and liability has been fastened upon the owner and driver of the vehicle, i.e., the present appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the truck bearing registration no. CG 14 D 0266 was owned by appellant-1, Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari, which was hired by the Electricity department, Pathalgaon, and the agreement was executed between them. The deceased Prakash Tirkey was an employee of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (in short “CSEB”) and was posted as lineman. On 27-02-2013, he had gone to Jashpur for his official work and in the evening when he was returning by the said truck and sitting in the cabin of the truck, near Laxmi Rice Mill, Village Lakhjhar, N.H. 43, the truck in which the deceased was sitting had met with an accident and the said truck was dashed into a tree. The Driver and Prakash Tirkey had received grievous injuries and Prakash Tirkey was immediately taken to Patthalgaon Hospital. After primary treatment, he was shifted to Raigarh Hospital, but on the way, near village Dharamjaigarh, he died. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased Prakash Tirkey, have filed a claim case for compensation of Rs. 44,25,000/- before the learned Claims Tribunal with the averment that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 57 years, he was receiving monthly salary of Rs. 43,049/- and the Mac 1431 of 2017 3 claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased and the compensation may be awarded to them as claimed. 3. The non-applicants, No. 1 & 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle-truck have filed their written statements and denied that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver. However, they have submitted that due to failure of the steering and brake, the accident occurred. Their truck was duly insured with the insurance company and the liability to pay compensation, if any, is upon the insurance company. 4. The non-applicant No. 3/ insurance company has also filed its written statement with the averment that the deceased died due to his own negligence. He was travelling in the said truck as a fare-paid passenger, and the driver of the said truck had permitted him to travel as a passenger for whom the insurance policy is not covered, and non- applicants-1 & 2 are jointly and separately responsible for the same. The insured truck was not authorized to ply on rent or under any agreement with the CSEB despite that it was plied in violation of the policy condition, that too after obtaining the travelling fare from its passenger, and therefore, there is a clear breach of policy condition and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings made by the respective parties, the Learned Claims Tribunal has framed 8 issues, and after recording
Facts
evidence of the parties, passed the award on 29-02-2016 and held that Mac 1431 of 2017 4 the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 39,49,119/- but has exonerated the insurance company from payment of compensation, and liability to pay compensation is imposed upon non-applicants-1 & 2/ appellants, who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Bench decision of this Court in Mallawwa & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 403], came up for consideration once again in a batch of appeals filed by different insurance companies, including the present Appellant Company, in the decision of this Court reported in [(2001) 6 SCC 724] Mac 1431 of 2017 11 under the lead case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. 23. Upon considering the various decisions which had preceded the judgment in Satpal Singh's case (supra) the two-Judge Bench was of the view that some of the striking features of the new Act had not been brought to the notice of the Court which could have a bearing on the conclusion arrived at in Satpal Singh's case, i.e., that on account of the definition of "goods vehicle" and "goods carriage" under the new Act, goods carriages were no longer used to carry any passenger. Their Lordships were also of the view that the defence available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act would stand obliterated on account of the law as declared in Satpal Singh's case. Their Lordships felt that under the new Act, it would be a breach of condition in case the vehicle was used for a purpose other than for which permit had been issued. Apart from the above, the effect of the deletion of Clause (ii) to the Proviso to Section 95(1)(b) in the new Act also required reconsideration. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to have the various issues reconsidered by a larger Bench. 24. The aforesaid questions were, thereafter, gone into by a Bench of three-Judges, where the issues decided in Satpal Mac 1431 of 2017 12 Singh's case were revisited. In the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 223] the three-Judge Bench considered the provisions of Section 95 of the 1939 Act and Section 147 of the 1988 Act in detail and also the amendments effected to Section 147(1)(b)(i) by the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and came to the conclusion that in Satpal Singh's case (supra), this Court had proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were identical to the provisions of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it stood before its amendment. It was held that Section 147 of the new Act deals with the requirements of the policy and limits of liability incurred to third party risks, but the Proviso thereto makes an exception to the main provision, which reads as follows : "Provided that a policy shall not be required-- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-- Mac 1431 of 2017 13 (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability." 25. It was also noticed that as far as employees of the owner of the motor vehicle were concerned, an insurance policy was not required to be taken in relation to their liability, other than arising in terms of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On the other hand, Proviso (ii), included under Section 95 of the 1939 Act, imposed a liability upon the owner of the vehicle to take out an insurance policy to cover the liability in respect of a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment. The same was consciously omitted from the provisions of the 1988 Act. It was further held that the applicability of the decision in Mallawwa's case (supra) to the facts of the case before Their Lordships would have to be considered keeping that aspect of the matter in view. 26. Proceeding further, their Lordships observed that Section 2(35) of the 1988 Act does not include passengers in goods carriages whereas Section 2(25) of the 1939 Act did, since even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. Noting the difference in the definitions of "goods vehicle" in the 1939 Act Mac 1431 of 2017 14 and "goods carriage" in the 1988 Act, Their Lordships held that carrying of passengers in a goods carriage was not contemplated under the 1988 Act. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the three-Judge Bench over-ruled the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh's case, holding that the law had not been laid down correctly therein. 27. The aforesaid issue once again surfaced in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh [(2004) 3 SCC 297], where the provisions of Section 149 and also Section 147 fell for consideration. While considering the liability cast upon an insurer under Section 149(1) and the limited grounds of liability in the insurance contract and third party claims as envisaged in the Proviso to Section 149(4), this Court also had occasion to refer to Section 147 relating to the statutory liability and any contractual liability under the insurance contract and whether the contractual exclusion of liability in respect of third party claim was permissible. The three-Judge Bench held that such a condition in the insurance policy, whereby the right of the third party is taken away would be void and that except under the situation provided for by Section 149(2)(b), the insurer would not be entitled to avoid its statutory liability, since its rights of recovery were preserved against the insured under the Proviso to Section 149(4) of the 1988 Act. Mac 1431 of 2017 15 28. While the aforesaid judgment was delivered on 5th January, 2004, on the very next day, another three-Judge Bench of this Court rendered a decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur [(2004) 2 SCC 1], in the context of the provisions of Section 147(1)(b) of the 1988 Act after its amendment in 1994. While referring to the earlier decision in the reference decided in Asha Rani's case (supra), their Lordships held that inspite of the amendment effected to Section 147(1)(b) in 1994, the position remained the same in respect of persons other than the owner of the goods and his authorized representative being carried in the goods vehicle. It was held that “it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.” It was, therefore, felt that the interest of justice would be subserved if the Insurance Company satisfied the awarded amount and recovered the same from the owner of the vehicle and for the said purpose it would not be necessary for the Insurance Company to file a separate suit, but to initiate a proceeding before the executing Court as if the dispute between Mac 1431 of 2017 16 insurer and the owner was the subject matter of the determination before the Tribunal which had decided in favour of the insurer and against the owner of the vehicle. 36. The liability of the ;insurer, therefore, is confined tothe number of persons covered by theinsurance policy, and not beyond the same. In other words, as int he present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. 37. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, Mac 1431 of 2017 17 would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle. As mentioned hereinbefore, in the instant case, the insurance policy taken out by the owner of the vehicle was in respect of six passengers, including the driver, travelling in the vehicle in question. The liability for payment of the other passengers in excess of six passengers would be that of the owner of the vehicle who would be required to compensate the injured or the family of the deceased to the extent of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. In the matter of Sanjeev Kumar Samrat vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2014 (14) SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 12 to 19, 23 and 24 that :- 12. Regard being had to the earlier provision and the amendment, this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh[2], scanned the anatomy of the provision and also of Section 149 of the Act and expressed the view that under the new Act, an insurance policy covering the third party risk does not exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. It was further opined that the decisions rendered under the 1939 Act in respect of gratuitous passengers were of no avail while Mac 1431 of 2017 18 considering the liability of the insurer after the new Act came into force. 13. The correctness of the said decision came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others[3]. The learned Chief Justice, speaking for himself and H.K. Sema, J. took note of Section 147(1) prior to the amendment and the amended provision and the objects and reasons behind the said provision and came to hold as follows:- “The objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the insurance policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression “including owner of the goods or his authorised Mac 1431 of 2017 19 representative carried in the vehicle” which was added to the pre-existing expression “injury to any person” is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury.” [Emphasis supplied] S.B. Sinha, J., in his concurring opinion, stated thus (Asha Rani Case, SCC P235, paras 27 -28): - “27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle Mac 1431 of 2017 20 caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 28. An owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Court's decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh[4] is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paid.” [Emphasis supplied] Being of the aforesaid view, the three-Judge Bench overruled the decision in Satpal Singh (supra). 14. In Baljit Kaur (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others[5], the aforesaid view was reiterated. 15. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati and Others[6], after referring to the scheme of the Act and the earlier pronouncements, it has been held that the provisions of the Mac 1431 of 2017 21 Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carrier and the insurer would have no liability therefor. 16. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others[7], the Court laid down that the provisions engrafted under Section 147 of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and hence, any injury to any person in Section 147(1)(b) would only mean a third party and not a passenger travelling in a goods carriage, whether gratuitous or otherwise. 17. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to the decision of a three- Judge Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembati Patel and Others[8] wherein the legal representatives of the driver of the truck had succeeded before the High Court and were granted compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- repelling the contention of the insurer that the liability was restricted as provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the 1923 Act”). After discussing the schematic postulates of the provision, the Court ruled that where a policy is taken by the owner of the goods vehicle, the liability of the insurance company would be Mac 1431 of 2017 22 confined to that arising under the 1923 Act in case of an employer. It further observed that the insurance policy being in the nature of a contract, it is permissible for an owner to take such a policy whereunder the entire liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in Sub-Sections (a), (b) or (c) of the proviso to Section 147(1) (b) may be fastened upon the insurance company and the insurer may become liable to satisfy the entire award. But for the said purpose, he may be required to pay additional premium and the policy must clearly show that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is to be seen how the term “employee” used in Section 147 is required to be understood. Prior to that, it is necessary to state that as per Section 147(1)(b)(i), the policy is required to cover a person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. As has been interpreted by this Court, an owner of the goods or his authorised agent is covered under the policy. That is the statutory requirement. It does not cover any passenger. We are absolutely conscious that the authorities to which we have referred to hereinbefore lay down the principle regarding non- coverage of passengers. The other principle that has been stated is that the insurer’s liability as regards employee is restricted to the compensation Mac 1431 of 2017 23 payable under the 1923 Act. In this context, the question that has been posed in the beginning to the effect whether the employees of the owner of goods would come within the ambit and sweep of the term “employee” as used in Section 147(1), is to be answered. In this context, the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) gains significance. The categories of employees which have been enumerated in the sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso (i) to Section 147(1) are the driver of a vehicle, or the conductor of the vehicle if it is a public service vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that sub- clause (c) is of wide import as it covers employees in a goods carriage being carried in a vehicle. The learned counsel for the insurer would submit that it should be read in the context of the entire proviso, regard being had to the schematic concept of the 1923 Act and the restricted liability of the insurer. It is further urged that contextually read, the meaning becomes absolutely plain and clear that employee which is statutorily mandated to be taken by the insured only covers the employees employed or engaged by the employer as per the policy. 19. It is the settled principle of law that the liability of an insurer for payment of compensation either could be statutory or contractual. On a reading of the proviso to Sub-Section (1) Mac 1431 of 2017 24 of Section 147 of the Act, it is demonstrable that the insurer is required to cover the risk of certain categories of employees of the insured stated therein. The insurance company is not under statutory obligation to cover all kinds of employees of the insurer as the statute does not show command. That apart, the liability of the insurer in respect of the said covered category of employees is limited to the extent of the liability that arises under the 1923 Act. There is also a stipulation in Section 147 that the owner of the vehicle is free to secure a policy of insurance providing wider coverage. In that event, needless to say, the liability would travel beyond the requirement of Section 147 of the Act, regard being had to its contractual nature. But, a pregnant one, the amount of premium would be different. 23. It is worthy to note that sub-clause (i)(c) refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the statutory policy. On an apposite reading of Sections 147 and 167 the intendment of the Legislature, as it appears to us, is to cover the injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. It is apt to state here that the proviso commences in a different way. A policy is not required to cover the liability of Mac 1431 of 2017 25 the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act and that too in respect of an employee carried in a vehicle. To put it differently, it does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid that the statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language employed in the Statute. Therefore, we conclude that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured. 24. Presently, for the sake of completeness, we shall refer to the policy. The policy, exhibit R-2/3/A, clearly states that insurance is only for carriage of goods and does not cover use of carrying passengers other than employees not more than six in number coming under the purview of the 1923 Act. The language used in the policy reads as follows:- “The Policy does not cover : 1. Use for organized racing, pace-making reliability trial or speed testing Mac 1431 of 2017 26 2. Use whilst dwaing a trailer except the towing (other then for reward) or any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle. 3. Use for varying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than driver) not exceeding six in number coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.” On a bare reading of the aforesaid policy, there can be no iota of doubt that the policy relates to the insured and it covers six employees (other than the driver, not exceeding six in number) and it is statutory in nature. It neither covers any other category of person nor does it increase any further liability in relation to quantum. 17. In the present case, the deceased was the employee of CSEB, and under the agreement with the CSEB, the vehicle was plied, and he met with an accident and died. However, there is lack of evidence from both parties as to the fact that whether the deceased was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger, fare-paid, or for any other purpose, and further, whether he was on duty at the time of the accident, or not. It is also to be held whether the said vehicle truck was engaged with the CSEB under any contract or not. Although certain documents have been filed by the appellant in the present appeal, with respect to his duty and agreement with CSEB, the same cannot be taken into consideration Mac 1431 of 2017 27 unless the other party is provided a proper opportunity to rebut the same. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial law, and therefore, this court deems it appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Claims Tribunal, who shall pass the award afresh after providing the proper opportunity to lead further evidence, documentary as well as oral, to the parties. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned award dated 29-02-2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal for decision afresh after providing further opportunity to lead evidence to the parties oral as well as documentary, in accordance with law. 19. No order as to cost(s). (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- padma
Arguments
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that, the deceased was an employee of CSEB, under whose employment he was travelling in the said truck. While on duty, he met with an accident by the said truck and died. There is no bar that the truck cannot be attached to the CSEB under an agreement. The insurance policy carried the liability of three persons including the driver. The policy was the package policy and a total of Rs 20,908/- has been paid as the premium amount. It is not the case that the truck was carrying more than three people at the time of accident, including the driver. He would also submit that the limitation as to the use of the vehicle under the policy covers the use of vehicle carrying passengers except for employees, (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was engaged in official duty and during their official work the accident occurred, therefore, the policy covers the use of the vehicle under which the deceased died, and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal under the surmises and conjectures, have passed the award and exonerated the insurance Mac 1431 of 2017 5 company without there being any sufficient evidence. Thus the appeal filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle may be allowed and liability to pay compensation should be imposed upon the insurance company. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent-4 / insurance company would support the impugned award and submitted that the learned claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on record, rightly exonerated the insurance company which needs no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. In view of the issue involved in the present case, the relevant condition of the insurance policy (Ex.A10) is necessary to reproduce here, which is as below:- Limitation as to use The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 1 Use only for carriage of goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Policy does not cover: 1) Use for organised racing, pace-making, reliability trial, or speed testing, (2) use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle, (3) Use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees Mac 1431 of 2017 6 (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. 10. This court finds it imperative to examine section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to ascertain the liability of the insurance company in case of death or bodily injury suffered by the claimants in a motor accident. Section 147 of the M.V. Act reads as follows: Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which -(a)is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and(b)insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) - (i)against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place;(ii)against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, Mac 1431 of 2017 7 notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. 11. Thus, upon bare perusal of section 147 (1)(b)(i), it is apparent that the insurance policy covers the liability of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods or authorized representative, or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha rani, AIR 2003 SC 607 has discussed that ‘any person’ shall be construed to involve only the third party and that would also include the owner or his authorized representative. In the facts of the present case, from salary slip Ex.A12, and from the evidence of AW3- Narendra Nayak, it is found proved that the deceased was an employee of the CSEB, and the vehicle was plied at the time of the accident under the agreement with CSEB. There were no goods found in the offending vehicle. It is also not the case that more than three persons including the driver were sitting in the said truck. There is lack of sufficient evidence with respect to the capacity under which he was travelling in the vehicle. Looking to the nature of duties discharged by the employee who was employed with the CSEB under whose agreement the vehicle was plying, he may be the passenger under employment, but it requires evidence. It can be said that the learned Claims Tribunal Mac 1431 of 2017 8 committed an error by holding that the deceased was unauthorizedly travelling in the vehicle and he was not on duty and not authorized from the CSEB to travel on the said truck. 13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was hired by the CSEB under the agreement and the deceased who was an employee of the CSEB was travelling in the vehicle under his employment who met with an accident and died. 14. This court also takes into account the insurance policy exhibit A-10 by which the offending vehicle was insured which clearly provides the sitting capacity of the vehicle to be 2+1 including the driver and according to the evidence of AW-3, Narendra Nayak, the deceased was the employee of CSEB working as Lineman grade 2. No evidence has been led by the insurance company in its defence, and to confront the evidence of the claimants which pointed towards the defect that the deceased, while on duty, and travelling in the truck under his employment, met with an accident by which he died. The exoneration of the insurance company from payment of compensation is on the ground that the claimants’ witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that the deceased was not on his duty at the time of the accident, but the insurance company has not led any evidence to the effect that the vehicle was being plied in violation of policy condition. Mac 1431 of 2017 9 15. In the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. K. M. Poonam and Others, 2015 (15) SCC 297, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 19 to 28, 36 and 37 that : 19. The law relating to the insurer's liability for payment of compensation to gratuitous passengers in a vehicle after the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which replaced the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, initially came up for consideration in Satpal Singh's case (supra) wherein this Court was called upon to consider the change in the provisions relating to third party risk, as was contained in Section 95 of the 1939 Act as against the provisions of Section 147 of the 1988 Act. 20. Their Lordships held that as per the proviso to Section 95(1) when read with its Clause (ii), it would be clear that the policy of insurance was not required to cover the liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons who were gratuitous passengers of that vehicle. In contrast, under Section 147 of the 1988 Act, the insurance policy was required to insure the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub- section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle Mac 1431 of 2017 10 in a public place and also against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 21. On an interpretation of the aforesaid provisions of Section 147 of the 1988 Act, it was held that under Sub-section (2) there is no upper limit for the insurer regarding the amount of compensation awarded in respect of death or bodily injury of a victim of the accident. It was, therefore, apparent that the limit contained in the old Act having been removed the policy should insure the liability incurred and cover injury to any person, including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative, carried in the vehicle. Their Lordships concluded that as a result of the provisions of the new Act, the earlier decisions rendered under the 1939 Act were no longer relevant and an insurance policy covering third party risk was not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle was of any type or class. 22. The said view which had followed an earlier three- Judge