( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company from award dated 9-3-1994 given by the II Additional District Judge (Motor accident Claims Tribunal) Mysore in MVC No. 576 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE sole question agitated in this case is whether the insurance Company is liable to pay compensation awarded to one who is travelling in a private car. Whether Insurance company is liable to pay compensation for injury or death of such person in motor accident. The facts of the case in brief are that on 10-5-1992 one Abdul Rehman along with members of his family and relatives was travelling in an Ambassador car bearing No. KA-01-M-3200 from Karuur to Bangalore via virajpet and on account of rash and negligent driving of the said car by the first respondent in MVC Case No. 576 of 1992, the accident did take place at 3 a. m. near Panchavati on B. M. Road and in that accident, the claimants husband Abdul Rehaman died on the spot and several other persons were injured. The claimant/respondent 1 preferred a claim petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of her husband and claimed compensation to the tune of 6,10,000/ -. The application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was moved and the claimant made a claim for interim compensation which is described under Section 140 of the Act as 'no Fault Liability' to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ -. The Tribunal appears to have granted time to the respondents to file objections but it appears from the order none was filed. Respondent 3 at a later stage prayed for some more time to file the objections but the Tribunal in view of the fact that sufficient time had already been granted, rejected the prayer for postponement. The Tribunal passed the award after having found that the death of the claimant's husband having occurred in the motor accident on 10-5-1992 involving car bearing No. KA-01-M-3299, the owner of the vehicle respondent 2 is liable to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- It further, found that respondent 3 is the insurance Company with which the car has been insured. So it directed the said amount to be paid by the Insurance Company along with 6% interest per annum from the date of publication till the date of deposit and prescribed the period of one month for its deposit.

( 3 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from this order, the Insurance company has come up in appeal.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri H. K. Ramachandra learned Counsel for respondent 1.

( 5 ) SRI Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company urged that by the Tribunal the insurance Company has erroneously been held responsible to pay the compensation amount under Section 140 of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that deceased was travelling with his family in a private car and so far as the private car is concerned, there is no liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount as the person travelling in a private car cannot be termed as a third party and they are not required to be covered by the policy. Learned Counsel submitted that 3rd party means a person other than the persons travelling in the vehicle. Learned Counsel further submitted that 3rd party meant person on the road but it does not include a person travelling in the private vehicle and therefore no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company with reference to the compensation, if any, payable by the owner and the Insurance policy even it was a mandatory requirement of law and that the policy is required to be taken under Section 146 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 which is almost para material and equivalent to Section 94 of Act 4 of 1939. In support of his contentions Sri sowri Raju relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Others v M/s. Ranjit ginning and Pressing Company Private Limited and Another and specially on observations made in Para 2