Insurance companies are not liable for claims regarding gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles under policies not covering those risks.

1. The award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short 'the Tribunal') mulcting the liability upon the appellant / insurer of the offending vehicle, granting compensation in respect of the death of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, placing reliance on an overruled decision rendered by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh , 2000 ACJ 1 (SC) [overruled in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani , 2003 ACJ 1 (SC)], is highlighted as the grievance in this appeal.

2. The deceased, namely, Ajay Ekka, aged about 23 years, was admittedly travelling by sitting on the side of the driver of the transport vehicle, i.e., pickup van bearing registration No. CG 14 - A 3573 on 13.9.2009. When the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, the driver lost control over the vehicle and it dashed against a tree because of rash and negligent driving, causing serious injuries leading to his death. This led to the claim petition preferred before the Tribunal seeking compensation under various heads.

3. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was employed as an electrician and was having a monthly income of Rs. 5,000. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed a joint reply and denied the averments raised against them. The appellant insurance company filed its version specifically contending that it was not liable to satisfy the claim in respect of a gratuitous passenger who was travelling in a goods vehicle. It was also contended that the driver was not duly authorised to drive the transport vehicle at the relevant time and that he was only having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and that's all. In support of the contentions, the appellant insurance company examined a clerk from the Regional Transport Office at Raigarh and also an officer of the insurance company.

4. After completion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was only because of negligence on the part of the driver of the pickup van insured by the appellant and proceeded to work out the compensation. After considering the various aspects, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,500 towards the loss of dependency. Granting a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses, the total compensation was fixed as Rs. 1,57,500. It is asserted by the appellant that even though various rulings rendered by the Apex Court on the point, in respect of liability of the insurer as to the claim in respect of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle were cited, it was simply ignored and the Tribunal, placing reliance on the overruled verdict passed by the Supreme Court in Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein it was held that the policy having been admitted, the insurer was liable to satisfy the award. It was accordingly that the award was passed directing the compensation to be satisfied with interest at the rate specified therein, by the appellant, which is put to challenge in this appeal.

5. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, submits that the various decisions rendered by the Apex Court on the point have been noted in para 21 of the award, except the decision in Asha Rani (supra). While considering the specific issue as to the absence of coverage / liability by the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the overruled decision rendered by the Apex Court in Satpal Singh (supra) as noted in para 27 and the liability was fixed accordingly, which is per se wrong, illegal and arbitrary in all respects.

6. Mr. J.K. Saxena, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - driver and owner