1. This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(MV) No.454/2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta by the insurer of the lorry KL-3E-9007. The injured's case is that on 31.01.2004 at 10 a.m., while he was alighting from a lorry KL 3E 9007 the 2nd respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the claimant was thrown away and sustained serious injuries, immediately, he was removed to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla. On the basis of a complaint, the police registered a case and after completing investigation, laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. The appellant insurance company in the written statement contended that the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger and he is not covered as per the policy. The injured was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. The appellant examined RW1 and marked Exts.B1 to B3 as his documentary evidence. The learned tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.78,309/- with 9% interest and cost to the injured and directed the appellant to satisfy the award.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 1st respondent is a gratuitous passenger in a lorry and he is not covered as per the policy. The injured is an additional driver-cum-cleaner, who was not driving the lorry at the time of accident as directed by his employer. Merely he was travelling in the cabin of the lorry would not make him different from any other gratuitous passenger.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that additional premium was collected under Ext.B3 policy and the claimant is covered as per the policy as an employee.

4. While appreciating the rival contention, it is necessary to refer S.146 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1994 (for short 'Act') which ensures the necessity for obtaining insurance policy to vehicles to third party risk. Section 146 of the Act reads as follows:

“146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk :- (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or causes or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter.

Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also b e a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).”

In this context, it is appropriate to quote Section 147 of the Act, which reads as follows:

“147.Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-

(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 by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: provided that a policy shall not be required-

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the police or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee,-

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the v