( 1 ) THIS appeal under sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 raises a short question regarding liability of the insurance company the insurer of a motor truck to satisfy the award of damages made payable by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rajkot in favour of the claimant whose mother died out of the motor accident caused by the motor-truck which was insured against the third party risk by the appellant-insurance company. The facts leading to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass and they deserve to be stated at this juncture.

( 2 ) AT 2 p. m. in the noon of 28/04/1975 an accident was caused by a goods-truck bearing No. GTE 8747 in the compound of Western India Tiles Company Makansar (Morvi ). The said truck while inside the compound of the tiles factory and being taken in reverse ran over a manual labourer presumably an employee of the tiles factory who was engaged in loading tiles in the said truck. Deceased Bai Jivi was doing manual work in the said factory and she died in harness on account of the accidental injuries caused to her by the offending truck which came in reverse without blowing horn and ran over the unfortunate victim. She succumbed to her injuries in a few hours. Her son filed M. A. C. Application No 93 of 1975 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Rajkot for being awarded a total of Rs. 9 999 on account of the accidental injuries caused to his mother who lost her life on account of those injuries. In the said claim petition the driver of the truck was joined as opponent No. 1 while the owner of the truck was joined as opponent No. 2. The insurance company which had insured the offending truck was joined as opponent No. 3. The Claims Tribunal held that the tort-feasor was liable to make good the entire claim of Rs. 9. 999 and on that basis the Tribunal held the owner of the truck to be vicariously liable for the tortious act of his driver who was found to be both rash and negligent when he drove the truck in reverse without taking proper precautions. So far as the claim against the insurance company was concerned it was found by the Tribunal that under sec. II (i) of the insurance policy Ex. 41 the company had undertaken liability to pay compensation for accidental injuries caused to third parties by use of the insured vehicle. As per the said provision found in the insurance policy the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the claim to the full extent even though the accident in question was caused by the offending truck not in a public place.

( 3 ) AS a result of the aforesaid finding the Tribunal made the insurance company-opponent No. 3 liable to satisfy the awarded amount with interest and costs.

( 4 ) THE insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging that part of the award of the Tribunal by which it is made liable to answer. the claim of the claimant

( 5 ) MR. A. H. Mehta learned Advocate appearing for the insurance company submitted that as admittedly the accident was caused within the private compound of the tiles factory no statutory liability to cover the risk arising out of such accident could be foisted upon that insurance company and that there was nothing in the insurance policy to suggest that the insurance company had taken any wider coverage on the charge of extra premium even going beyond the limits stated by the statutory provision of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 requiring the insurance company to have compulsory coverage of specified risks caused to third parties. In short Mr. Mehta submitted that neither there was any contractual obli- gation nor any statutory obligation on the part of the insurance company to satisfy the award in the present case.

( 6 ) MR. H. K. Rathod learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 claimant and Mr. S. R. Divetia learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 the owner of the truck on the other hand submitted that even though the accident had occurred within the compound of the tiles factory. on proper construction of th