JUDGMENT :- The present appeal arises out of the award dated 14th January, 2008 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,01,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants.

2. The brief conspectus of the facts are as follows :

On 23-9-2002 at about 2.15 a.m. the appellant-Smt. Alka Mangla was travelling in a Toyota Qualis car bearing Registration No. DL 8CG 5463, which was being driven by her husband respondent No. 1. When the said Qualis coming from the direction of ISBT reached on Ring Road near Budh Vihar Picket, Delhi, a truck bearing Registration No. HR 38A, 8581 was standing stationary in the middle of the road without any indication or signal, due to this, the said car smashed into the truck with a great force. As a result, the petitioner, her husband and the driver of the truck received grievous injuries.

3. A claim petition was filed on 29th April, 2005 and an award was made on 14th January, 2008. Aggrieved with the said award the present appeal is preferred by the insurance company.

4. Mr. Sameer Nandwani counsel for the appellant has assailed the said award and contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 1-Mrs. Alka Mangla is not a third party qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as she is a member of the same family and was travelling in the same vehicle with her husband and therefore, cannot claim any compensation against the husband-respondent.

5. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court entitled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263 : (AIR 2007 SC 1054) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428 : (AIR 2007 SC 1609), in support of his contentions.

6. Per contra Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa counsel for respondent No. 5 refuted the contention of the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the award suffers from no infirmity. The counsel urged that the award is just and fair and requires no interference.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the award.

8. The car was insured with the appellant. Admitting the said fact of the car being insured with it, defence was taken by the appellant that the injured was not a third party in the car qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the policy of insurance covered public risk to third parties and since passengers in a car are not third parties, appellant was not liable to satisfy the award. The important question of law which has come before this Court is that whether the expression "any person" in S. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 covers the family members of the employee of the insured travelling in the car of the insured.

9. Whether a Gratuitous Passenger travelling in a private car would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and covered by 'Statutory Policy' within the meaning of S. 147 of the Act is no more debatable, but in the instant case in contra distinction to this, on perusal of the policy it becomes manifest that the policy in question taken out by the insured and issued by the appellant is a 'PRIVATE CAR PACKAGE POLICY' and as notified by the Tariff Advisory Committee, with effect from 1-7-2002, the terms and conditions of a private car package policy mandates as under :-

"SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES

1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of :-

i) death of or bodily injury, to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured.

(ii) Damage to property other than property belonging

Click Here to Read the rest of this document