The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the liability of the insurer in a motor accident claim case.

This appeal is directed against award dated 29-3-2005 of the learned M.A.C.T.(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Mapusa.

2. Some undisputed facts may be stated to dispose off this appeal. Rama Padsalgi, the deceased husband/father of Respondent Nos.1 to 3(claimants, for short) was travelling in tipper truck No.GA-01-T-1102 belonging to Respondent No.5 (owner, for short) and operated by Respondent No.4(operator, for short) under an agreement dated 20-5-1992 and driven by Respondent No.4(driver, for short). The said truck met with an accident on 20-8-1998 at about 7 p.m. whilst the said truck was returning from Surla to Bicholim. Deceased Rama Patsalgi who was sitting in the cabin of the said truck died. On account of his death, the claimants filed a claim for compensation.

3. The learned M.A.C.T. has come to the conclusion that the said truck was driven by the driver, Respondent No.4, rashly and negligently, and, we are not concerned with that finding.

4. Respondent No.5 herein, the owner had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy in respect of the said truck with third party risks for the period from 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999, and this is a position which has now been admitted before this Court by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the insured-owner as well as the insurer, the appellant herein. This position was also admitted by the driver as well, in his written statement. In other words, except for the claimants, the other parties to the claim petition do not dispute that the said tipper truck was a goods vehicle and had a comprehensive insurance policy covering damage to it and third party risks.

5. The learned M.A.C.T. after considering the evidence led by the claimants and other parties came to the conclusion that there was nothing forthcoming to show that Rama, since deceased, was not a contractor employed for Respondent No.2(owner of the truck) or that they were not travelling in the truck from the mines at Surla to Bicholim on regular basis. The learned M.A.C.T. also held that there is material on record to show that the claimant (sic. deceased) and other persons too, were carried in the truck in the course of their employment and therefore Respondent No.3(appellant herein) would be liable to indemnify the owner in paying the compensation, and more so in the facts of the present case when no policy of insurance was produced on record by the insurer. The learned M.A.C.T. then held that the contention of the insurer therefore, could not be accepted that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the truck driven by the driver, owned by the owner and insured with the insurer(the appellant, herein). The learned M.A.C.T therefore held that the insurer(appellant herein) and the operator were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased was not a third party but was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and therefore the appellant was not liable to indemnify either the owner or the operator . He further submits that the deceased was a contractor and was not anybody's employee and thus was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the operator submits that the deceased was an employee of V. S. Dempo at the time of his death and therefore the appellant was liable to indemnify the operator. However, when his attention is drawn that no such plea was taken by the operator, learned Counsel submits that no plea was required to be taken.

7. Three questions arise for the consideration of this Court. The first is whether the learned M.A.C.T. was justified in saddling the liability upon the insurer. The second is whether the liability could have been saddled on the insurer with option given to the insurer to recover compensation from the insured or the operator and the third whether the award requires to be modified saddling the