Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case appellant Insurance Company may be held liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded with permission to recover from owner of the vehicle.

Harsha Devani, J.—Since common questions of law are involved in all these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. First Appeals No. 710/2007 to 713/2007 are directed against the common judgment and award dated 31st May, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 1205/1996, 1207/1996, 1208/1996 and 1218/1996 and First Appeal No. 3852/2008 which has been preferred by the insurance company, is directed against the judgment and award dated 29th November, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2259/1999.

3. A brief outline of the facts which have given rise to the first appeals may be referred to.

3.1 First Appeal No. 3852/2008: The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Claims Tribunal stating that on 8th February, 1999, deceased Chandrakantbhai was travelling in a Matador Tempo bearing No. GJ.5T-2312 along with his goods. The driver of the Matador was driving the same with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when they reached the Dhaduli – Lakhpat road, the driver lost control over the vehicle which turned turtle. The deceased suffered serious injuries on account of the accident and succumbed to the same. The claimant claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of compensation under different heads. Before the Claims Tribunal it was the case of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The Claims Tribunal in Paragraph 28 of the impugned award has discussed the issue and expressed the view that though the insurance company was not liable for that act, but it is liable on behalf of the owner to pay the compensation to the third party, viz., the petitioner and the insurance company may recover it from the owner and it would be treated as a decree in favour of the insurance company. Accordingly, it held the owner, driver and the appellant insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

3.2 First Appeals No. 710/2007 to 713/2007: Claim petitions being Claim Case No. 1208 of 1996, 1205 of 1996, 1206 of 1996, 1207 of 1996, 1218 of 1996 and 1219 of 1996 came to be filed before the Claims Tribunal in connection with a vehicular accident which took place on 30th September, 1996 at 8:00 p.m. at village Samadhiyala, taluka Khambha, District Amreli, involving a tractor bearing No. GAO – 6007 whereby one Parvatiben Tejabhai succumbed to the injuries sustained by her and died, in relation to which, her heirs and legal representatives filed Claim Case No. 1208 of 1996, whereas the claimants of the other claim cases sustained serious injuries. Before the Claims Tribunal, on behalf of the appellantinsurance company it was contended that the insurance policy had been obtained in respect of the tractor only and the vehicle involved in the accident is a tractor. The policy covers only the risk of the driver. The tractor is not a goods vehicle and there is no question of carrying passengers; the deceased and the injured claimants were travelling on the mudguard of the wheels of the tractor and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. The Claims Tribunal, placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 and held that there is a breach of policy, but insofar as the award of compensation is concerned, at the first instance, the insurance company has to satisfy the award and then recover the awarded amount from the owner of the tractor. The Claims Tribunal, accordingly, held that the claiman