1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

2. Admit.

3. Learned Counsel Shri S.S. Patil waives notices for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in First Appeal No. 2575/2012 and also waives notice Respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 2548/2012. By Consent of learned Counsel for the parties, first appeals are heard finally at the stage of admission.

4. Two first appeals are filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgments and awards dated 16-06-2010 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. Nos.89/2006 and 90/2006, whereby allowing the compensation for the death.

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The main defence taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the vehicle involved in the accident is goods vehicle an Isher truck, and both the deceased were travelling as passengers in the said truck. They were neither owners of the goods nor the persons authrorised who can be covered under the policy. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company relied on Section 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short referred to as “Act”) and submitted that, Section 147 of the Act states the categories of persons who are entitled to claim the compensation and the defence are available to the Insurance Company under Section 149 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that the original claimants i.e. respondents could not prove that the deceased were the persons who were fit for the compensation under Section 147 of the Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that by way of amendment in 1994 in Section 147 (b) of the Act, death or injuries caused to a person who is authorised representative of the goods carried in the goods vehicle can be covered under the amendment and he is entitled to get compensation. The evidence tendered by the claimants to that effect is false and not reliable. In support of his submission he relied on :-

“1] Nation Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rattani & Ors; reported in AIR 2009, Supreme Court, 1499

2] Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Premlata Shukla & Ors. ; reported in 2007, DGLS (Soft.) 573.

3] National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Cholleti Bharatmma & Ors; reported in 2007, AIR, SCW 7337.

4] New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karnool Vs. Rathnavath Sali & Ors; reported in 2009 (2), ALL MR (Journal) 5 (A.P. Court).”

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not frame the issues properly, and there was no specific issue regarding defence of the Insurance Company.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondents/Original claimants have vehemently opposed the appeal. The learned Counsel invited my attention towards the evidence adduced by the original claimants i.e. (Respondent No. 1 in FA. Nos. 2775/09 and 2548/2009) widows of the respective deceased. They have deposed before the Tribunal that their husband were an agriculturist and having business of milk and at the relevant time they boarded in the Isher truck from Songaon Check post (Gujarath State) and were coming with the plastic bags to their place of residence. The learned Counsel further submitted that the in the spot Panchanama (Exhibit 18) and FIR (Exhibit 17) there is a mention that a plastic bags were found at the spot of the accident, and thus the original claimant/respondent No. 1 (in FA No. 2575/2009) discharged her burden, on the point that the deceased were travelling with the goods in the vehicle and, therefore, they are entitled to get compensation as per Section 147 (b) of the Act, 1988. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Insurance Company did not examine any witness in support of its case that the deceased were travelling as a passengers and not carrying goods with them. The learned Counsel submitted that the burden to prove this fact was entirely on the appellant-Insurance Company. On this point he re