R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The challenge in all these appeals is to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri made in MCOP.Nos.89 to 106 of 2014, dated 23.09.2014, in and by which, the Tribunal, while granting compensation to the victims of a road accident that occurred on 01.09.2011 directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is as follows:-

2. On 01.09.2011, a group of persons had engaged an Eicher van (goods vehicle) bearing registration No.TN-29-AW-4232 belonging to the 1st respondent, to go to Soolakurichi from Kotapatty to attend the marriage of one Govindan with Bagyalakshmi. After the marriage, while they were returning in the same vehicle to Kotapatty, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the vehicle toppling in the middle of the road. Due to the said accident, some of the persons travelling in the said Eicher van died and some of them suffered grievous injuries, which led to the filing of the above claim petitions which are 18 in number. The claimants sought for compensation on the ground that the driver of the Eicher van was negligent.

3. All the claim petitions were resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the Eicher lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-AW-4232 being a goods vehicle did not have permit to carry passengers. All the persons viz., the deceased as well as the injured claimants were unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. It was also contended that it is the case of no insurance and therefore, the direction to pay with liberty to recover from the insured cannot also be granted.

4. The Tribunal which heard the Original Petitions quantified the compensation payable in each of the Original Petitions depending upon the loss of earning capacity in the injury cases and the loss of dependency suffered in fatal case and awarded various amounts as compensation. The Tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and gave it liberty to recover the same by filing execution petition against the owner of the vehicle viz., 1st respondent in the Original Petitions. Aggrieved the Insurance Company is on appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. S. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

6. Mr. S. Arunkumar would submit that he is not challenging the quantum of compensation. At the same time, the learned counsel would vehemently contend that the direction to pay and recover issued by the Tribunal is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) ACJ 1 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had while disagreeing with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others,2000 ACJ 2 (SC) had referred the matter to a larger bench.

7. He would also invite our attention to the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 to contend that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation for gratuitous passengers who were neither contemplated at the time when the contract of insurance was entered into nor any premium was paid to the extent to extend the insurance to such category of people.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also pointed out that the Tribunal was not right in relying upon the judgment in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others,2000 ACJ 2 (SC) which was over ruled in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 223.

9. Mr. S. Arunkumar would also invite our attention to other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the larger bench judgment of this Court in United India Insurance company Vs. Nagammal and