JUDGEMENT :

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23rd February, 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (‘MACT’ for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 91 of 2006. By the Judgment and Award the learned Chaiman MACT, Akola has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% from the date of application till realization to the claimants and then recover the same from respondent No.1-Owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Brief facts are as under;

The petitioner and the present respondent nos.1 and 2 filed their Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- arising out of accidental death of Prakash Ingle, who died in an accident caused on 25th October, 2005, while he was travelling as a passenger by Matador No. MH 28 H 6312 owned by present respondent no.3 and driven by present respondent No.4. The said vehicle was insured with appellant.

3. The claim is resisted only by appellant-Insurance Company by filing its written statement (Exh.31). The appellant-Insurance Company denied the accident in question and claimed that the offending vehicle was not properly maintained and was in substandard condition. Therefore, it claimed that it is not responsible to pay any compensation.

4. The appellant-Insurance Company also resisted the claim on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the offending vehicle was not supposed to carry passengers as per terms and conditions of the policy.

5. Upon considering the evidence on record, the learned Chairman, MACT, Akola allowed the Claim Petition. Although the learned Chairman, MACT held that there being breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation but while passing the final order directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and recover from the owner of the offending vehicle in the same execution proceedings. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the Judgment and Award, which is under challenge in the present Appeal.

6. Mr. Limaye, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently submits that the learned Chairman, MACT committed grave error while directing the appellant -Insurance Company to pay the award amount first to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner / respondent No.1 despite holding that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. According to learned Counsel, the learned Chairman, MACT failed to appreciate that the insurer in no case is liable to pay compensation in case of death or injury the persons travelling in Goods vehicle and neither the owner is statutorily bound to cover risk of passengers nor the insurer is statutorily bound to issue such coverage of risk of passengers carrying in Goods Vehicles which by provisions of law itself is not permissible. The learned Counsel in support of his submission also placed reliance in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2003 ACJ 1 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chaturaben Bhurabhai Pipaliya and Others, 2014 ACJ 249.

7. Respondent No.1 to 4 though duly served on merits remained absent.

8. The only short question in the present Appeal which I am required to decide is whether the learned Chairman, MACT was justified in law to direct the appellant-Insurance Company to pay and then recover the compensation amount, although it held that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, I may also make it clear at the outset that the findings so recorded by learned Chairman, MACT regarding the breach of terms and conditions of policy are not assailed by the respondents-claimants in any