The insurer cannot raise the defence under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the stage of adjudicating no-fault liability.

( 1 ) THESE cases arise out of the interim awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' short), requiring the owners and insurers to pay compensation for no fault liability.

( 2 ) IN the former two cases, the labourers who were waiting by the road side, were invited by the truck drivers who offered them wages. They got into the trucks and while travelling, the trucks were involved in accidents causing deaths of some and injuring others. The heir of the two deceased labourers filed claim petitions against the owners and insurers of the trucks.

( 3 ) THE accident leading to M. P. No. 28/94 involved a truck in which several persons including the deceased sitting on the rear side died and some others were injuried. The heirs of one of the deceased persons filed claim petition against the owners and insurers of the truck.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the Insurance Companies, the policy in each of the three cases clearly stated that it will cover only six employees other than the driver and, therefore, the persons who were gratuitous Passengers, are not covered by the policy, the Insurance Companies can raise the defence under Section 149 of the 1988 Act, corresponding to Section 96 (2) of the 1939 Act. It is contended that this defence is available even where an interim award is sought under Section 140 of the 1988 Act corresponding to Section 92 A of the 1939 Act and in any event, if on a mere reading of the claim petition it is prima facie clear that persons involved in the accident are not covered by the policy, the insurer cannot be compelled to pay compensation arising out of no fault liability.

( 5 ) WE find that several High Courts, except the Karnataka High Court, hold the view that once the conditions stipulated in Section 140 of the 1988 Act are satisfied, the insurer becomes liable to pay the amount, subject-of course to right to raise appropriate contentions in the main, claim petition before passing final award and cannot raise such a defence at the earlier stage of adjudicating no-fault liability and if ultimately it is held that the insurer is not liable, the final award can make an appropriate direction in that regard. A difference of opinion existed in the Karnataka High Court on this point and that has been settled by a decision of Full Bench of that Court in favour of the insurer, holding that "if having regard to the facts stated in the claim petition itself and the contents of an Insurance Company, a finding could be arrived at that the policy did not cover the risk, in such a case there is no reason as to why the Insurance Company should be compelled to pay the amount solely on the ground that the policy of Insurance existed and compel the Insurance Company to collect the money paid from the owner of the vehicle which would throw the Insurance Company to innumerable litigations" United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Immam Nadar, (1990) II ACJ 757.

( 6 ) THE decisions in which the view against the insurer has been taken are the following :- (I) Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Beasa Devi, 1985 ACJ 1, Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana, High Court. (ii) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minqual Lourence Correla, 1986 ACJ 646, High Court of Bombay. (iii) Samati Deb Barma v. State of Tripura, 1987 ACJ 1205 (sic) Division Bench of Guwahati, High Court speaking through Dr. Justice T. N. Singh. (iv) Babban Tiwari v. U. B. Chakraborty, (1987) II ACJ 863 Guwahati High Court. (v) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. A. C. T. , (19. 88) II ACJ 612, Guwahati High Court, per Hansaria, J. (vi) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ghisi Devi, (1989) II ACJ 728, High Court of Rajasthan. (vii) Satyadeo Singh v. Vidyawati Devi, (1989) II ACJ 1110 Allahabad High Court. (viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surjit Singh, (1988) 2 ACJ 1122, Jammu and Kashmir High Court. We may also advert to the following decisions of this Court: