The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of a passenger in a goods vehicle, except in so far as is necessary to meet the requirements in relation to a liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

SENGOTTUVELAN, J. :- One Abdul Jabbar, the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 to 7, lost his life in a fatal road accident about 12 O'clock midnight on 2-10-'75, on the Hosur-Krishnagiri Road while he was travelling in the lorry MYD 3425 belonging to the first appellant and insured with the second appellant. The case of the respondents 1 to 7, who are petitioners before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.20 of 1977 under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is as follows -

The deceased Abdul Jabbar was a sheep merchant and was aged about 50 years at the time of his death. The deceased was travelling in the lorry MYD 3425 from Bangalore. The lorry was driven by the 8th respondent, herein, and when the lorry was proceeding near Kurubarabelli at about 12 O'clock in the midnight on 2-10-1975 due to the rash and negligent driving at high speed, the lorry capsized and Abdul Jabbar who sat in the cabin met with instantaneous death. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 8th respondent herein. The respondents 1 to 7 claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000 before the Tribunal. The driver of the lorry remained ex parte. In the counter statement filed by the lorry owner, who is the first appellant herein before the Tribunal, the allegation that the lorry was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner was denied. He attributed the accident to the mechanical defect in the lorry. He also contended that the driver was directed not to carry any passenger in the lorry and as such the driver had acted beyond the course of employment and taken the deceased passenger in the vehicle for which the lorry owner cannot be held liable. In any event, the deceased was not a fare paying passenger and the Insurance Company is not liable in terms of the insurance policy. It was also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. In a separate counter-statement, the Insurance company, the second appellant herein, denied the allegation that the lorry was insured so as to cover the liability of the deceased passenger and the age, income and occupation of the deceased passenger were also disputed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company also contended that in any event, the compensation claimed is high and exaggerated. On these pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination-

1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MYD 3425 by the first respondent?

2. What is the amount of compensation to be awarded?

2. On behalf of the claimants the first respondent was examined as PW 1, and one C. Venkatappan an eyewitness to the accident was also examined on behalf of the claimants to prove that the lorry was driven by the driver, the 8th respondent herein, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased. The claimants also filed the certified copy of the judgment in C.C. No.164 of 1976, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, in which the driver admitted his guilt before the criminal court and was duly convicted and sentenced on the charge of rash and negligent driving. On this evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MYD 3425 by the driver. In the grounds of appeal the finding of the Tribunal that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver is not challenged. The main grounds taken by the appellants in this civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows :-

1. The Tribunal erred in not taking note of the provisos (i), (c) and (ii) of S.95(1) (b), which states that, there need not be any policy to cover any liability in relation to a person carried in a goods vehicle.

2. The Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased being carried in the lorry was not a third party on whose behalf a claim could be preferred aga