( 1 ) LEAVE to delete respondent No. 1 as the Tribunal has already passed the orders against respondent No. 1, and the appeals are aimed against respondent No. 2. Hence, the appeals have been heard for final hearing.

( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against the common judgment and orders dated september 7, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) below Applications under S. 140 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in different claim petitions arising from the same accident. As common questions of fact and law are involved, all the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THIS group of appeals raises the important question about the scope of inquiry when a claimant files an application under S. 140 of the Act for claiming compensation under "the no fault liability principle".

( 4 ) IN the aforesaid group of claim petitions filed by persons who have suffered permanent disablement, the Tribunal has passed the order under S. 140 of the Act against respondent No. 1 - owner of the vehicle but not against the Insurance company on the ground that at the time of accident, the injured persons (who are claimants) are being carried in the goods vehicle by the driver of the vehicle with notice or knowledge of the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the risk to such passenger was not covered by the Insurance Policy issued by respondent No. 2 - united India Insurance Co. LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company ).

( 5 ) BEFORE narrating the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be set out briefly.

( 6 ) THIRTY to thirty-two persons were travelling by the Truck in question belonging to respondent No. 1 (there is no dispute about identity of the vehicle or its owner) from Rajkot to Kotda on November 7, 1995. The vehicle met with an accident causing injuries to 27 persons who were travelling therein. 27 claim petitions, therefore, came to be filed before the Tribunal. During pendency of the claim petitions, respective claimants filed Application Ex. 7 in each case claiming compensation under S. 140 of the Act in the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 each on the ground that they received injuries and suffered permanent disablement and that the vehicle involved in the accident belonged to respondent No. 1 and was insured by respondent No. 2 - United India Insurance Co. LIMITED The claimants produced a copy of the First Information Report, a copy of the Insurance Policy and other documents as required by Rule 231 (9) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

( 7 ) THE Insurance Company strenuously contested the applications and submitted that the claimants were passengers being carried in a goods vehicle and, therefore, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and also the permit granted by the Motor Vehicle authorities under the Act. Hence, the Insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award for compensation under S. 140 of the Act.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal examined the averments made in the claim petitions to the effect that the claimants were travelling with their goods in the vehicle in question, the contents of the First Information Report, the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, the Permit issued by the R. T. O. and the Registration Book for the vehicle in question and relying on certain decisions of other High Courts, the Tribunal held that it was open to the Tribunal to examine the defences raised by the Insurance company while hearing the application for compensation under S. 140 of the Act and on that basis examined the rival contentions and passed the order under appeal on September 6, 1996 holding that each claimant is entitled to recover interim compensation under S. 140 of the Act in the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum fro