( 1 ) APPEAL has been preferred by the owners of tractor trolley involved in a motor accident against whom the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has made an interim award u/s. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 7 (the legal representatives of the deceased in the incident), but exonerating the insurance company, the respondent No. 8 from payment on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident and being not a third party, the insurance company was not liable to compensate for the loss of the life.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident and that the tractor was insured with the insurance company, the respondent No. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 8 have cited a host of case law on the point as to whether an insurance company would be liable to pay compensation for loss occasioned by the death of a traveller in a goods vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on 1988 (3) SCC 1, Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1735, Nirmal Kumar v. Brijlal 1987 Cur Civ LJ (SN) 35, Harishankar Tiwari v. Jugru 1987 Jab LJ 712 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntala Bai 1987 MPLJ 719 to contend that the insurance company would be liable while the learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 places reliance on a Full Bench pronouncement of this Court in Kallu Maharaj v. Meenabai 1989 Jab LJ 490, Shivlal v. Rukmabai 1987 Acc CJ 341, Bhanwarsingh v. Gatubai (1989) 2 ACC 35 (Madh Pra) and Santra Bai v. Prahlad 1985 Acc CJ 762 to contend that such a loss is not covered by the insurance company either under the policy or under the statute.

( 3 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the core of controversy lies elsewhere and not at the point at which the learned counsel for parties have chosen to concentrate.

( 4 ) PROVISION has been made by several provisions of the Act for fixing liability on the insurance company for payment of compensation by making the same co-extensive with the liability of the vehicle owner unless the insurer be protected by an exception. Nevertheless, the rule relating to the liability of an owner and consequentially of the insurer, remains the general law of torts whereunder an owner of the vehicle would not be liable to compensate for the loss arising out of accident except on proof of negligence. The Apex Court in N. K. V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal 1980 Acc CJ 435, expressed and emphasised the necessity of no fault liability legislation by State. Sec. 92-A of the Act came to be inserted by the amendment of 1982 in response to the call. Now where the death or permanent disablement of any person arises from an accident by a motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle becomes liable to make compensation inescapably because of no-fault-liability statutorily enacted. The provision has done away with the necessity of recording a finding of negligence as a cause of the accident before awarding the limited compensation.

( 5 ) IT will be useful to notice the provisions contained in Ss. 92-A, 92-E and 93 (ba) of the Act which read as under:-"92a. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.- (1) where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in res