Oral Judgment:

1. The First Appeal is taken up for final hearing, with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.

2. By this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company, seeks to challenge the order dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 102/2006 (Exh.5), on an application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act of 1988”).

3. The facts in brief are that : A truck bearing registration No, MH31/W-6364 met with an accident on 23rd April, 2006 while proceeding from Karsala. It dashed against a Babhul tree by the side of the road resulting in serious injuries to one Premlal Pandurang Jangle, who died while receiving medical treatment at Government Medical College, Nagpur. It appears that an application u/s 140 of the Act of 1988 was filed by the claimants (wife and father of deceased Premlal) on the ground that accident arose out of motor vehicle truck bearing No, MH31/W-6364 on 23rd April,2006 while deceased was traveling in the said truck which resulted into death of said Premlal. The claim has been filed against the owner of the vehicle as well as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (present appellant).

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that insurer is not liable to pay the amount of compensation because the policy of insurance did not cover passengers traveling by goods vehicle, which was not supposed to carry the passengers and further on the ground that Driver of the vehicle in question was rash and negligent and, as such, owner of the vehicle alone is liable to compensate the claimants.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the ruling in Gujawwa Shivanna Gumte and others vs. T.C. Shrikant and others {2002 (6) Bom.C.R. 295} in connection with section 95 (1)(b) (i) proviso (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in which it was held that persons travelling in goods vehicle not meant and used for systematic carrying of passengers for hire, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Another ruling referred to is in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Gajanan Mohite : (1998 (1) Civil LJ 44) to contend that Tribunal has to conduct a summary trial before granting interim relief under its powers under section 140 (i.e. No fault liability to pay compensation),which is beneficial provision. The ruling in Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company vs. Kantabai Manohar Sonone : 2005 (1) Bom.C.R. is relied in order to submit that insurance company can not be directed to make payment of compensation as there was no additional contract or premium paid for covering the risk of passengers. Another ruling referred to is in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devreddy Konda Reddy and others : 2003 (6) Bom.C.R. 386 to support the submission that carrying of passengers in goods carriage is not contemplated under the Act of 1988. There is no statutory liability of owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passengers travelling in goods carriage and insurer would have no liability therefor.

6. As against these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relied on the ruling in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanjappan reported in 2004 (5) All Mah. Rep. (SC )393 to argue that insurer in the first instance is liable to pay quantum fixed by Tribunal to claimants although he can recover it from the insured owner by directly approaching the Executing Court for recovery and executing Court is expected to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law regarding the payment by the owner of the vehicle to the insurer. Reliance is further placed on the ruling in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur : (2004) 2 SCC 1 in which the insurer was directed to satisfy the claim and then to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In the ruling of New India Insurance Co. vs. Satpalsingh AIR 2000 SC 235, it is observed