ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 27.9.2021 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Dindori in M.A.C.C. No.414/2016.

3. This appeal is filed by the insurance company mainly on two grounds.

4. First ground is that deceased Vasudev Yadav was gratuitous passenger in a pickup Van and therefore, insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants in absence of there being any endorsement in the insurance policy (Ex.D-5) charging any premium for gratuitous passenger.

5. Second ground which has been taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation which should have been 70,000/- in place of 2,09,000/-.

6. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, in his turn, submits that deceased was not a gratuitous passenger but was owner of the goods or at best representative of the owner of the goods as has been accepted by DW-1 in his crossexamination. It is further submitted that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782, loss of estate is permissible to different claimants.

7. Shri Rakesh Jain, in his support, has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature At Madras in case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagammal and Others, 2009 ACJ 865 and also on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani and Others, 2009 ACJ 925.

8. Similarly, reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision of this High Court in case of Bhav Singh v. Savirani and Others [2008(1) JLJ 134 (FB) = 2008(1) M.P.L.J.], submits that a gratuitous passenger is not covered and therefore insurance company should have been exonerated.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Nagammal and Others (supra), is that passenger who is neither owner nor agent of owner of goods accompanying such goods in a goods vehicle is not statutorily required to be covered. In such cases, no principle of pay and recover as statutorily recognized in section 149(4) and section 149(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable ipso facto to such cases.

10.Similarly in case of Rattani and Others (supra), fact is that 30-40 persons were travelling in a Truck which turned turtle. In the FIR, it was not mentioned that dowry articles were loaded in the vehicle. Claimants took a plea that they were travelling in the vehicle as representatives of owner of goods. Brushing aside this contention Supreme Court held that 30-40 persons could not have been representatives of owner of gift articles from bride side, if any, in the vehicle and held that as victims of the accident were travelling in the truck as gratuitous passengers therefore insurance company will be exempted from its liability.

11. As far as law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Bhav Singh (supra), is concerned, facts of that case were labour working for the owner of the tractor-trolley died in accident. It is held that merely a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 or under terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

12. However, Allahabad High Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Madesiya and Others, decided on 18.2.2021 has taken a view that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3363 has held that “in view of 1994 amendment in sub-clause (I) of section 147(1)(b) of the new Act in which the following words were brought in ;

“.... injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in a vehicle.”

8. Thus, this category of cases are also disposed of by declaring t