The central legal point established in the judgment is the broad scope of liability for the insurance company under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, encompassing passengers in a goods vehicle and emphasizing the statutory nature of the liability.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 2. 4. 1993 passed by Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul in Claim case No. 3 of 1990. There are other appeals registered as Misc. Appeal Nos. 341, 343 and 344 of 1993 arising out of the consolidated award dated 2. 4. 1993 passed in Claim Case Nos. 3, 4, 9, 20 and 30 of 1990.

( 2 ) THE disposal of this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other three appeals, misc. Appeal Nos. 341, 343 and 344 of 1993.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of this case are that on 5. 11. 1989, the respondent No. 1 jagdish, Chhotelal, Sawai Ram Davande, lakhanlal and deceased Saddu were travelling in a truck belonging to the respondent no. 3, Dharmendra Kumar Rathore. It was being driven by respondent No. 2, Ramkishan alias Ram Kishore Rathore. These passengers were going to Sarni on Baretha Sarni road. It has been claimed by all the claimants except Sawai Ram Davande and the deceased Saddu that they were accompanying their goods. The only persons who were not accompanying the goods were sawai Ram Davande and deceased Saddu. Saddu was travelling as a passenger and sawai Ram Davande, working as Process server in Income Tax Department, was going to Sarni for Government work. It so happened that the truck turned turtle and, therefore, all the persons except one mohan Pawar suffered injuries and Saddu died at the spot. All the claimants claimed that they had suffered injuries on account of negligence of the driver, the respondent no. 2.

( 4 ) THE driver and owner of the truck, i. e. , the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claimed in their written statement that this was a case of inevitable accident and, therefore, they claimed that they were not liable. It was further asserted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, respondent no. 2 in driving the truck.

( 5 ) THE appellant insurance company, on the other hand, raised the defence that the truck in question was a goods carrying vehicle. It was claimed that there was no liability of the appellant either statutory or contractual because the passengers could not be carried in goods vehicle. The liability of the persons accompanying their goods was also denied.

( 6 ) THE Claims Tribunal has granted an award of Rs. 12,750 to the respondent No. 1, the claimant in this appeal with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 27. 11. 1989. In Misc. Appeal no. 343 of 1993 (Claim Case No. 20 of 1990) Sawai Ram Davande was granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 18,200 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 30. 3. 1990. In Misc. Appeal No. 344 of 1993, Mohan Pawar and Baijabai were granted compensation in Claim Case No. 9 of 1990 the amount of Rs. 72,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 19. 1. 1990. In Misc. Appeal No. 341 of 1993, Lakhanlal was awarded an amount of Rs. 20,465 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 4. 5. 1990 in Claim Case No. 30 of 1990. It is reiterated that this court is deciding the liability of the appellant insurance company in all these appeals.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the claims Tribunal on issue No. 4, at para 14 of its award, is incorrect as there was no contractual liability as per IMT 14-b of the conditions of insurance. It was pointed out that policy was limited only to endorsement nos. 22, 23, 56-B and 26 attached with the policy. The endorsement No. 14-b regarding the legal liability in respect of authorised non-paid fair passengers was not a condition of insurance as no premium was paid. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to claim the benefit of contractual liability under proviso (ii) to clauses (a) and (b) of section 147 (1) of the Act.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 1-claimant, on the