The United India Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV)2277/2000 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is the appellant. The accident occurred on 23-1-2000, involving a goods autorikshaw, bearing registration No.KL-8/D 7044, in which the claimant, the first respondent herein, was travelling, accompanying the goods, firewood, as the owner of the firewood, and he sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.35,480/- and directed to realize the amount from the insurance company, the appellant. The same is under challenge.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, insurance company, is that there is no provision in Ext.B1 policy of insurance for carrying any passenger in the goods autorickshaw. Thus, the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, as the goods autorikshaw is not covered under the policy for carrying any gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation amount from the insurer. It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal went wrong in directing the insurer to honour the award. The learned counsel, to emphasise this point, relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165), National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur ((2004 (1) 938 (SC)) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Bommithi Subbhayamma (V (2005) SLT 348). In Asha Rani’s case cited above, the Apex Court was dealing with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as ‘the old Act’, and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’, as it stood before the amendment of 1994, as well as after the amendment. The court held that the expression ‘to any person’ in Section 147 of the Act will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorized representative, being carried in the vehicle. However, after the amendment of Section 147 in the year 1994, it is made compulsory for the insurer to insure, even in case of goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authroised representative being carried in the vehicle, when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his authorized representative either dies or suffers bodily injuries. The court further held that ‘any person’ appearing in Section 147 of the Act must be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used, i.e. a third party. Therefore, the court was of the opinion that the provision thereof did not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger in a goods vehicle and the insurer would not be liable therefore.

3. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur, reiterating Asha Rani case, it was further held at paragraph 20 as follows:

“20. It is therefore, manifest that inspite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provisions contained in S.147 with respect to person other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would not be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the Legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time of the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.”

4. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Bommithi Subbhayamma (V (2004) SLT 348) also the Apex Court considered Asha Rani’s and Baljit Kaur’s cases, cited above, and reiterated the principles contained in both the above cases.

5. The bar placed reliance on Sasi v. Saidali (2005 (3) KLT 496), in which a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the injury sustained by a person, who was traveling on the load carried in a trailer, a