ORDER

1. This common order shall govern the disposal of CR.No.200 of 2012 (Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Imrat Sonkar), CR.No.201/2012 (Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bhupendra Sonkar & Others) and M.A.No.1622 of 2012 (Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suppa Bai and Others) arising out of common award dated 22.3.2012 passed by Additional Member MACT Pawai, District-Panna in MACT No.20/11, 21/11 and 22/11 seeking setting aside of impugned award.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners, after referring to paras No.17, 19 and 26 of impugned award as well as depositions of applicant witnesses Kaushalya, Suppa Bai and Uttam Singh and further, relying upon Original Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others, (2003) 2 SCC and National Insurance Company v. Rattani and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 75, submits that claimant/deceased were traveling in goods vehicle. Therefore, they, being gratuitous passengers, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Tribunal has wrongly fastened liability on Insurance Company to pay the compensation, therefore, petition/appeal filed by appellant be allowed and Insurance company be exonerated from liability to pay the compensation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the party and perused the record of the case.

5. Perusal of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant as well as grounds taken in petition as well as appeal memo reveal that primarily, present petition/appeal has been filed on the ground that offending vehicle was commercial/goods carrying vehicle and injured/deceased were traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers/after paying fare. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Admittedly, offending vehicle is a truck Kargo King Pickup and it is commercial/goods caring vehicle. Perusal of Insurance Policy (Ex.D/3 and D/4) reveal that Insurance company has received premium for third party, PA ownerdriver and legal liability to driver (IMT 28). It is evident from above insurance policy (Ex.D/3 and D/4) that no premium for passenger has been received by insurance company.

7. Perusal of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rattani and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 75 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 339, and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 423, reveal that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to any persons travelling as gratuitous passengers in commercial/goods carrying vehicle but from Rattani (supra) and Cholleti Bharatamma (supra), it evident that if persons travelling in goods carrying vehicle/commercial vehicle are owner/representative of goods, then, position would be different.

8. Perusal of depositions of applicant witness Suppa Bai, Kaushalya Bai, Uttam Sonkar and FIR (Ex.P/1), reveal that deceased Rajjan, injured Imrat and applicant witness Koshlya Bai and others were coming back after having sold their vegetables with remaining vegetables.

9. Thus, the sole issue involved in these petitions/appeal is that whether a t the time of accident, deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner/representative of goods and in the cabin of offending vehicle or they were travelling as gratuitous persons.

10. Present petitions/appeal relates to injured Bhupandra, Imrat and deceased Rajjan. Admittedly, injured Bhupendra was minor on the date of accident and he was travelling in goods carrying vehicle/commercial vehicle along with his mother Kaushalya Bai and not as owner/representative of goods. Hence, with respect to injuries sustained by injured Bhupendra, petitioner/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to injured Bhupendra.

11. So far as liability to pay compensation with respect to deceased Rajjan and injured Imrat is concerned, in t