1. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant (United Insurance Company Ltd) and Mr. Anil Jaiswal, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent (owner and driver of the vehicle in question) in the admission matter under Order 41 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. With consent of the parties, this Misc. Appeal is disposed of after hearing the appellant at the admission stage itself.

3. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 22.6.2005 passed by Sri Ghaneshwar Srivastava, llnd Additional District Judge, Darbhanga-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal in Case No. 40 of 2000.

4. The claimant, Shahanaz Khatoon filed the aforesaid Claim Case No. 40 of 2000 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs 4,10,000/- (four lacs ten thousand only). According to the case of the claimant, the husband of the claimant i.e. the deceased, Md. Akbar who was aged about 35 years was sitting on the top of the truck bearing Registration No. BR-30/G- 4182 on 5.5.2000. On the said truck, the Barat party was sitting. According to her further case, her deceased husband was a tailor master. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the deceased, Md. Akbar fell from the truck and succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of her fardbeyan, a police case was registered being Jale P.S. Case No. 5 of 2000 u/ss 279, 304A of the IPC. In the said claim application, the owner of the truck was made Opposite Party No. 1 whereas the driver was made O.P. No. 2 and this appellant-insurance company was made O.P. No. 3.

5. After issuance of notice, the owner and the driver neither appeared nor filed any W.S. contesting the claim of the claimant. The insurance company, i.e. the appellant in this Misc. Appeal who was O.P. No. 3 appeared and filed a contesting written statement raising various grounds including that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation because the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle.

6. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the claim of the claimant in toto. Out of Rs 4,10,000/-, 50,000/- had already been paid by the insurance company. Therefore, the rest amount of Rs 3,60,000/- was directed to be paid to the claimant alongwith the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a short question relating to the liability of the insurance company only. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by amendment in the year, 1994, the liability of the insurance company was extended only to the owner and/or the representative of the owner of goods in vehicle only and earlier to that the liability was for the driver and khalasi only. The learned counsel further submitted that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal who passed the judgment and order directing the insurance company to pay the compensation.

8. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2004(2) PLJR page 59(SC) (M/s National Insurance Company Ltd V/s. Baljeet Kaur & Ors.). The Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, at Paragraphs-13 & 14 has held as follows:

"It is pertinent to note that a statutory liability enjoined upon an owner of the vehicle to compulsorily insure it so as to cover the liability in respect of a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment in terms of proviso (ii) appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act does not occur in Section 147 of the 1988 Act. The changes effected in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act as regard definitions of goods vehicle, public service vehicle and stage carriage have also a bearing on the subject inasmuch as the concept of any goods carriage carrying any passenger or any other person was not contemplated.

In a situation of this nat