1. This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(MV) No.2364/2004 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (for short 'tribunal') by the Insurance Company. The first respondent in this appeal sustained injury in a motor accident on 17.10.2003 at 12.35 p.m. while he was travelling in a goods autorickshaw and the tribunal awarded a sum of 80,100/- with interest and costs and the appellant was directed to satisfy the award.

2. The first respondent's case in the trial court was that on 17.10.2003 at 12.35 p.m., he hired goods autorickshaw KL- 8/R 5996 for purchasing fire wood from Ollur market. The driver of the goods vehicle driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the vehicle capsized, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. The driver and owner of the vehicle were set ex parte in the lower court. The appellant admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but denied the liability since there was violation of policy conditions. The tribunal examined PW1 to PW3 and marked documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9. Appellant's documents were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that first respondent was a gratuitous passenger in a goods autorikshaw. The owner of the vehicle got insurance coverage in respect of the goods vehicle for driver and owner of the goods alone. There is no insurance coverage to the passenger sharing the seat of the driver even before carrying the goods in the vehicle. From the facts of the case, first respondent did not cease to be gratuitous passenger though he claimed as the owner of the goods. The insured had paid premium for driver and the owner of the goods alone. Since there was no statutory liability and contractual liability, appellant is not entitled to pay compensation. Appellant relied on the decision of apex Court reported in New India Assurance V. Asha Rani (2003 (2) SCC 223).

4. The question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained to the first respondent who was travelling in a goods autorickshaw? The requirement of policy and limits of liability are specifically mentioned u/s.147 of the M.V. Act 1988. The controversy in the instant case is with regard to the liability of the insurance company of a passenger in a goods vehicle, when there was no goods carried in that vehicle. Appellant contended that the owner of the goods or authorised agent carried in the goods vehicle is covered u/s.147 of the M.V. Act 1988. The policy of insurance must be a policy which insured the persons specified in the policy. It also covers the liability of any person for the death of or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or any damages to property of a third party caused by arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. If that be the position, the challenge in this appeal is whether a person travelling in a goods vehicle for collecting the fire wood from a shop is covered under the policy. On a reading of S.147 of the M.V. Act 1988, it is clear that legislature made a provision u/s.147 to cover liability of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle.

5. Before considering the rival submission, it would be appropriate to notice S.147 of the Motor vehicles Act 1988. Section 147 (1) of the M.V. Act 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 authorized 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