The judgment establishes the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, despite the nature of the vehicle involved.

JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which did not find any error in the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor (in short the `Tribunal) either on facts or law to warrant interference.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The present respondents 1 to 10 filed a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act) claiming compensation from the present appellants and United India Insurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the `insurer).

4. According to the claimants, Amir Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased) sustained injuries and subsequently died due to an accident on 11.11.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Kamal Kumar Agrawal (appellant No.2) who was the driver of the vehicle No. UPN-8975 which was involved in the accident. It was stated that appellant No.1 was the owner of the vehicle, and that the vehicle was subject-matter of insurance with the insurer. Claim of Rs. 5,10,000 was made as compensation.

5 The insurer took the plea that the driver had no valid or effective driving licence, vehicle was not insured and the claim petition was filed in collusion with the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question.

6. The Tribunal framed two issues which run as follows:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. UPN 8975 by O.P. No. 2?

(2) To what relief and compensation, if any, are claimants entitled?

7. The Tribunal found that the accident took place when it was coming from Haridwar laden with sand. Thirty to forty persons were sitting on the sand and at the place called `Chandighat the said persons climbed on the truck and it overturned resulting in the accident. Three persons died including the deceased and several others were injured. According to the witnesses examined, none of them climbed on the truck forcibly. On the other hand, they had paid fare for traveling in the truck. They stated that Rs. 25 per passenger as fare was taken. The driver was examined as DW-1. According to him, number of persons forcibly climbed on the truck and as a result the truck met with an accident. He admitted that there was a conductor in the vehicle who ran away from the place ofaccident. He also admitted in his written statement that the persons forcibly climbed on the truck and 30 to 40 persons were in the truck. Analysing the evidence, the Tribunal came to hold that the conductor of the truck had collected fare and the persons had not climbed forcibly. In these circumstances, taking into account the age of the deceased and his estimated income, it was held that that claimants were entitled to Rs. 2,06,000 as compensation. It was further held that the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the owner had not insured the vehicle for carrying passengers in a goods vehicle. Only the driver, conductor and certain number of labourers could be carried, but there was no scope for carrying any passenger. Taking note of the terms and conditions of the policy note it was held that the insurer was not liable to make payment of the compensation and it was the owner who has to make the payment of the awarded amount with interest @9% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim petition. As noted above, the appeal filed by the owner and the driver before the High Court did not bring any relief to them.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accident took place after the amendment in 1994 in Section 147 of the Act and, therefore, the insurer ought to have been made liable to indemnify the award.

9. Learned counsel for the insurer on the other hand submitted that the position has not changed after amendment in 1994.

10. It is to be noted that in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2001 (6) SCC 713) it was held that though the vehicle concerned was a g