1. These appeals are filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited which is the second respondent before the Tribunal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (X Additional District Judge) Fast Track Court, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle in MV OP Nos.493 of 2007, 284 of 2007, 285 of 2007 and 420 of 2007.

2. All the claims arise out of the motor accident occurred on 14.07.2006 wherein the lorry bearing No. AP-31-T-3358 which was insured with the appellant was involved.

3. OP Nos.493 of 2007, 284 of 2007, and 285 of 2007 are preferred by the injured claimants, whereas O.P.No.420 of 2007 is preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased.

4. In O.P.No.493 of 2007 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant.

5. In O.P.No.284 of 2007 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.34,000/- towards compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant.

6. In O.P.No.285 of 2007 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant.

7. Whereas in O.P.No.420 of 2007 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-to the legal representatives of the deceased on account of the death of the deceased in the said motor accident.

8. The challenge by the appellant-insurance company to the impugned award is mainly on the ground that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants since admittedly the injured/deceased were travelling in the lorry as unauthorized passengers for which there is no coverage of risk under the policy and also by virtue of the provisions of the Act and the other ground on which the awards were challenged is that the injured claimants are not entitled for compensation since the doctor who treated them was not examined.

9. I shall in the first instance deal with the question whether the Tribunal erred in granting compensation to the injured claimants despite the fact that they did not examine the doctor who treated them for the injuries. It is the contention of the appellant/insurance company that in the absence of evidence of doctor, it is not possible for the Tribunal to grant any compensation to the injured. It may be stated that in all the cases, the compensation was awarded only to the simple and grievous injuries, but not in respect of any permanent disability. The proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide just and reasonable compensation to the victims of the motor vehicle accidents to the extent possible, and the provisions have to be construed in favour of the claimants. Further, the injured-claimants filed copies of injury certificates which are marked as Ex.A-2. The said documents indicate the injuries sustained by the claimants and they were marked without any objection from the appellant-insurance company. This apart, there is oral testimony of the injured-claimants in regard to the injuries sustained by them. There is no absolute proposition of law to the effect that in the absence of the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal cannot award any compensation, more particularly, when the injury certificates were brought on record. I am of the considered view that it is well within the competence of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation basing on the oral evidence of the claimants and the injury certificates brought on record by them. Therefore, this point is answered against the insurance company.

10. Now I shall examine the main contention that the injured-claimants as well as the deceased were labourers travelling in the goods vehicle which is prohibited, and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

11. In support of the contention that carrying passengers in the goods vehicle is prohibited as per the provisions of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. If the goods vehicle wh