1. All the appeals pertain to claim for compensation in respect of the accident occurred on 1.12.1998 at 1.30 a.m. in the night near Lahoti crushing machine on the Shahbad-Gulbarga road. A lorry bearing registration No.KA-20/2766 was transporting load of Shahbad stones from Wadi to Bombay. The lorry met with an accident resulting in death of 9 persons, out of them four are minors. Besides 13 inmates are injured. The injured and deceased were taken to Govt. Hospital, Gulbarga. One Devaraj, who is an appellant in MFA No.1046/2004, had lodged a complaint before the police to the effect that himself and other 28 persons boarded the lorry at Wadi to go to Gulbarga. The dependants of the deceased and the injured have filed petitions seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioners, but fastened the liability only on the owner. The claim against the insurer is rejected. The appeals are filed for seeking enhancement of compensation and the award against the insurer.

2. In the appeals relating to death cases the owner of the lorry is respondent No.2 and in the appeals relating to injury cases the owner is respondent No.1. The address of the owner of the lorry in the appeal is one that is furnished in the petition. The owner was served on the said address. He appeared and contested the cases. In these appeals, notices have been taken out to the owner of the lorry to the same address as shown in the petition. In some cases, the notice sent through “Registered Post Acknowledgement Due” [“RPAD” for short] are returned with an endorsement “Address is in-complete”. In some cases, the Postman had kept the post waiting for about six days and later on returned the Post with an endorsement “not found”.

3. Order VI Rule 14A mandates the party to furnish the registered address. The owner has not taken any objection to the address given in the petition before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the notices are served and has appeared before the Tribunal. The notices are returned with postal endorsement that “address is incomplete and not found” would only suggest that the owner is deliberately trying to avoid the issuance of notice. Hence, in the context, it is held that the notice to the owner of the vehicle is held sufficient in all appeals.

4. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that the insurer has collected extra premium of Rs.150/-to non-fare paying passengers [for short ‘NFPP’]. The IMT 37A of the present Tariff Regulations verbatim corresponds to IMT 14 of the earlier Regulation and it fastens liability on the insurer to pay compensation to the persons covered under IMT 14. The extract of IMT 37A is as follows:

“IMT 37A. Legal Liability to Non Fare Paying Passenger who are not employees of the Insured (Commercial Vehicles)

In consideration of the paying of an additional premium of Rs… and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 11-1(c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against his legal liability other than liability under statute (except Fatal Accidents Act, 1855) in respect of death or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured and not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is

a) charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck.

b) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or the other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from vehicle insured described in the SCHEDULE OF THIS POLICY.

Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy.

5. With reference to clause (B), it is argued that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the persons who are traveling along with goods and also to any other person connected with journey in one form or the other if he is traveling in the goods vehicle. The counsel in the first place, with reference to the material in the panchanama, strenuously