RAMANUJAM, J.

The only question that arises in this revision is whether the award of Rs.600 as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur, to the first respondent herein under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act is correct. The first respondent was doing business in gypsum at Kumbakonam. He had purchased gypsum on May 26, 1968, at Pollachi and after loading the same in the lorry MDR. 3549 belonging to the second respondent on May 26, 1968, for transport from Pollachi to Thanjavur, he also travelled in the lorry by taking his seat by the side of the driver of the lorry. The lorry dashed against a milk van and also against a tree about four furlongs south of Sengipatti village on the road to Thanjavur. On account of that accident the first respondent had sustained grievous injury on his leg. According to him, his left ankle was fractured and his left heel was cut. He is said to have been in hospital for 12 days and later on treated by a private doctor for six months. He made a claim in M.A.O.P. 25 of 1969 against the second respondent, the owner of the lorry, and the insurance company, the petitioner herein, claiming a sum of Rs.5, 000 ; Rs.2, 000 towards compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.2, 000 towards compensation for continuing disability and Rs.1, 000 towards compensation for loss of earnings. That petition was resisted by the second respondent on the ground that the accident did not occur as a result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver but that the milk van was responsible for causing the accident, and that the claim for compensation under the various heads was not sustainable. The insurance company, the petitioner herein, contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a commercial vehicle used for carrying goods, that the first respondent when he travelled in the lorry was only a voluntary gratuitous passenger and that, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the first respondent as P.W. 1 and the documents, exhibits A-1 to A-3, filed by him, held that the accident took place as alleged by him in his petition, that the driver of the lorry by his rash and negligent conduct had caused the accident, and that the first respondent had sustained injuries referred to above as a result of the accident. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that there was no material produced to show the medical expenses actually incurred by him and his normal income, and therefore it held that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the first respondent and the legitimate expenses likely to have been met by him, a sum of Rs.600 would be a fair and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal directed the said amount of compensation of Rs.600 to be paid by the insurance company, the petitioner herein. The petitioner has filed the above revision challenging the decision of the Tribunal.The question of the first respondent's entitlement for compensation and the quantum thereof as found by the Tribunal has not been challenged before me either by the second respondent or by the petitioner. The only question that is urged by the petitioner is that it is not liable to pay the compensation and that the second respondent alone is liable to meet the claim. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dealing with the requirements of policies and the limits of liability, is set out hereunder so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case.

95. (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 or by a co-operative society allowed under section 108 to transact the business of an insurer, and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily in