Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The insurance company in O.P.(M.V).No.409/04 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, is the appellant herein. Respondents 2 to 9, who are the wife and daughters of deceased Syed Mohammed, filed the claim petition, seeking compensation for the death of their breadwinner, who died in a motor vehicle accident, caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle by its driver, owned by the first respondent and insured with the appellant. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,79,000/- under various heads as follows :

Head Amount

Loss of dependency 153,600.00

Funeral expenses 3,000.00

Loss of estate 2,500.00

Loss of consortium 10,000.00

Loss of love and affection 10,000.00

Total 179,100.00

A contention was raised by the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, carried in a goods vehicle and since no extra premium was collected to cover the risk of the non-fare paying passenger carried in a goods vehicle, they are not liable to indemnify the insured in such cases. But, the Tribunal took a view that since the policy was a package/comprehensive policy, the risk of such persons is also covered and made the appellant liable to pay the amount by indemnifying the insured-the first respondent. Aggrieved by the finding regarding liability, the appellant has come before this court with the above appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, after finding that the deceased was neither the owner of the goods nor the representative of the owner of the goods, accompanying the goods at the time of accident, on the wrong assumption that package/comprehensive policy will cover such risk as well, made the insurance company liable, which finding is not correct. A gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle is not covered by such policy and only persons carried in a private car and a pillion rider carried in a two-wheeler are covered by such a policy, by virtue of the circulars issued by the statutory regulatory authorities, presently, the I.R.D.A. and so, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant is liable to indemnify the insured because it is a package/comprehensive policy, is not correct and that finding is liable to be set aside, is the contention raised by the appellant.

3. We have considered the contentions of the parties in detail.

4. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle involved in this case is a goods vehicle. Ext.B1 policy will go to show that it is a commercial goods vehicle (open). It is also an admitted fact that the accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle. There is no case for the claimant that he was either the owner of the goods or that he was an authorised representative of the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle and he was accompanying the goods in that capacity or he was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, employed in the vehicle at the time of accident.

5. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the liability of the insurance company, which reads as follows :

“147. Requirements of policies and limits of liabilities :--

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy, which -

(a) is issued by a person, who is an authorised insurer ; and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) –

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place ;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused