The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award for a gratuitous passenger in a goods carrying vehicle if there is no insurance coverage for such passengers, as determined by the interpretation of key legal provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act and the decision in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Baljit Kaur and Ors.

B.P. Katakey, J

1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 46 of 2000 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,74,000 with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation and directing the insurance company/appellant to satisfy the said award.

2. We have heard Mr. George Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant and also Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, leaned counsel for the respondent No. 1 claimant. Now appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2, owner of the vehicle, in spite of service of notice.

3. In the present case, the factum of accident, age, monthly income of the deceased and also the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was a goods carrying vehicle, are not in disputer. There was no permission obtained by the insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle's Act and hence the insurance company has not rightly challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. On a query made by this Court regarding whether any appeal has been filed by the owner (respondent No. 2) of the vehicle herein, challenging the award, the learned Counsel to the parties replied in negative.

4. The only contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying vehicle and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award passed by the teamed tribunal since there is no insurance coverage in respect of the passenger carried in such goods carrying vehicle and as such the insurance company can maintain an appeal on the ground contained in Sub-section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in respect of said goods carrying vehicle and therefore, no liability to satisfy the award can be fasten en the insurance company.

5. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1 has submitted that it is evident from the evidence of the claim that me deceased was a vendor of vegetable, fish, chicken etc. and was traveling in the said goods carrying vehicle in order to vend the articles in the market. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, the insurance company never in the written statement filed raised the plea that they are not liable as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The insurance company, according to the learned Counsel also has not cross examined the claimant and also did not examined any witnesses to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in respect of the said goods carrying vehicle, so as to exonerated the insurance company from satisfying the said award.

6. We have considered the ... put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties and also provided records of MACT case No. 46 of 2000.

7. It is evident from the deposition of the claimant that the deceased, i.e., the wife of the claimant was a vendor of vegetable, fish, chicken and was traveling from Bukvannei towards Kolasib in the said goods carrying vehicle bearing Registration No. MZ 01-6565, on 8.2.2000 along with her minor male baby aged about one and half year in connection with her business. The insurance company in the written statement has taken the following plea :

"(ii) That the police verification report makes a very clear that the accident vehicle was a truck which is a goods carrying vehicle which the accident took place when the fortuitous passengers numbering to twenty were traveling on board the vehicle and as such the insured has violated the terms of the insurance company and therefore the present claim application may be dismissed as against the answering O/P. insurance company".

8. It appears from the deposition of the claimant that he has not stated that the deceased was traveling in the said goods carrying vehicle carrying any go