Subhash B. Adi, J. -- Both the appeals art by the insurer questioning the liability in judgment and award in MVC No. 661/2002 and MVC No. 641/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and MACT, Kolar dated 12.01.2007.

2. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,47,400/- and Rs.21,600/- with interest respectfully and has held that the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. It is against the said direction, insurer is in appeals.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 3.5.2000 they were travelling in a tempo bearing registration No. KA-07-A-2545 from Channarayapattana to Kolar. When the tempo reached Rajapura and Mattigatta, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo, it dashed against the tree, as a result of which, claimants suffered grievous injuries. The claim petition was contested by the insurer intaralia denying the accident and denying the liability to indemnify. Interalia contending that the claimants were passengers in a goods vehicle, insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner. The Tribunal though held that there is a violation of the policy condition however, observed that the insurer should pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner.

4. Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that the claimants used the vehicle on hire. They have taken the goods vehicle to travel from Channapattana to Kolar to travel several places. FIR shows that there were several persons travelling in the said goods tempo, as such, risk of such passengers is not covered either under provision of Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act or under the policy. Though there is a reference of IMT 14. IMT 14 does not cover the risk of gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle but only for such persons travelling with the journey for the benefit of the owner. To support his case he relied on the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 4064/2004 dated 5.11.2007, MFA No. 25/2007 dated 21.4.2011, MFA No. 4166/2004 dated 17.1.2007, and the decision reported in 2005 II page 721 ACJ in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others. He also relied on the judgment reported in 2007 ACJ Page 1043 II in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Vedwati and Others and submitted that vehicle in question is a goods vehicle meant for transporting the goods only, as such, persons as specified under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act arts only the persons authorised to travel in the goods vehicle, not others. Even, if there is a contract, contract must be in consonance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. as such, the risk of the persons other than mentioned under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act is covered.

5. On the other hand, Smt. Suguna R Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that under Section 147 of the Act though, the risk of non-fair-paid passenger is not covered but the insurer can entered into a contract to cover the risk of person other than the persons mentioned in Section 147 of the Act. In this case, there is no dispute that the insurer has collected extra premium to cover the risk of non-fair-paid passenger/non-employed one and in view of the same, the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the owner. To support her contention, she relied on the judgment reported in Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Others, AIR 2004 SC 4360 and submitted that insurer is liable to pay the compensation and may recover the same from the owner, if there is a violation of conditions of policy. She relied on another decision of this Court reported in 2006 III KCCR 1753 in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Keludappa and Author and submitted that the risk of inmate of the private vehicle does not makes any difference as to whether they are paid passenger and gratuitous passenger. She also relied on other judgment reported in AIR 2007 (6) KAR