The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company in cases involving gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles, as determined by the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the application of precedents from the Apex Court.

V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is an appeal filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 15.1.2005, passed in Claim Petition No.15-K/II of 2003, titled Nirmala Devi and others versus Jai Chand and others. This judgment shall also dispose of the appeal filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle challenging the findings of the learned Tribunal, whereby the Insurance Company was held entitled to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents, hereinafter also referred to as the claimants, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of ‘the Act’ for the grant of compensation. It was alleged by the claimants that the deceased was going alongwith others to Deotsidh on a pilgrimage to Baba Balak Nath Temple. They were going in a Tempo bearing No.HP 40 3713 and the driver of the said vehicle (respondent No.8 herein) offered them a lift upto Chambi. The vehicle was being driven by respondent No.8 who is the son of respondent No.7 (owner of the vehicle). It was alleged that when the vehicle had covered a distance of 1 km. from Dodhamb, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and it went of the road and rolled down causing injuries and death of some of the occupants of the said vehicle. The deceased died in the said accident. The claimants are the widow, children and the parents of the deceased. The monthly income of the deceased was alleged to be Rs.2700/-and thus, the claimants had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.7.00 lacs.

3. The owner and driver of the vehicle filed reply and pleaded therein that the accident had not taken place due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver. The present appellant i.e. the Insurance Company (original respondent No.3) took up the plea that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The learned Tribunal framed six issues, which are reproduced as under:

(1). Whether deceased Tara Chand on 25.5.2002 while traveling on Tempo No.HP-40-3713 suffered injuries due to accident, caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 and consequently died, as alleged? OPP

(2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OP Parties

(3). Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3

(4). Whether vehicle in question was being plied contrary to the terms and conditions of insurance policy and M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR-3

(5). Whether deceased was traveling in goods vehicle unauthorisedly, if so, its effect? OPR-3 5-A

(6). Whether vehicle No.HP-40-3713 was not insured with the respondent No.3, as alleged? OPR-3

(7). Relief.

5. The parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned findings allowed the petition for a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- recoverable from the Insurance Company, which was held entitled to recover the amount later on from the owner in accordance with law.

6. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that they are not liable to pay compensation since the vehicle was a goods carrier and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

8. The learned counsel for the owner and the driver, on the strength of the earlier decisions of the Apex Court, had submitted that the Insurance Company was rightly held liable to pay the amount. However, the findings of the learned Tribunal t