( 1 ) THE appellant is the third respondent in the original petition filed under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles act for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- thepetitioners 1 to 4 filed a petition for award of compensation of Rs, 20,000/- in respect of the accident that took place on 31-10-1969 near Kanuru village of Machilipatnam-Vijayawada road when lorry A. P. K. 6572 of the 1st respondent wherein the deceased was travelling hit against a lorry APK 8545 stationed at Kanur. It is stated that the lorry of the driver APK 6572 plying towards Vijayawada offerred a lift to the deceased and the 2nd respondent while driving the lorry rashly and negligently hit at lorry APK 8545 and due to the impact the deceased received severe injuries and he died in the government hospital, Vijayawada. The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is the driver of the lorry and the 3rd respondent, the appellant herein is premier Insurance Co. Ltd , Vijayawada the 1st respondent filed the written statement stating that the accident is not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the petitioners are not entitled to the compensation sought for. The 3rd respondent while adopting the same plea with regard to rash and negligent driving also pleaded that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy do not cover the liability for an accident and the loss of lite of the deceased Rosaiah who was not an employee of the insured and who was travelling gratuitously on the date and time of the accident in the lorry at the instance of the driver, the 2nd respondent, who is not expected to take outside passenger, which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. On the above pleadings the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident is the consequence of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 2nd respondent. It is also found that the claim for Rs. 20,000/- made by the petitioner is reasonable. Regarding the plea taken by the Insurance Company denying their liability, it is held that the insurance policy is not placed before the Court and it is not known what are the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore they are not entitled to take this plea. Finally it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 20, 000/- as claimed by them and recover the same as against respondents 1 to 3.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the 3rd respondent, Premier Insurance company Ltd. Vijayawada. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compulsory insurance policy does not cover the passengers taken on free lift and further the policy does not contemplate liability in respect of unauthorised passengers as the policy is not intended for such contigency and in any event the claimant cannot have cause of action against the Insurance Company in the absence of privity of contract and owner of the vehicle alone has cause of action on the basis of policy. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the compulsory insurance policy enures to the benefit of the claimants and in any event the Insurance Company cannot deny the liability in the absence of production of policy which defines the terms of coverage, it may be recalled that the learned counsel for the appellant confined himself to the above legal contentions only and did not assail the findings arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving and the quantum of compensation.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to have grips over the reach of Sections 95 and 96 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel. "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance may be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or by a co-operative society allowed under Section