J U D G M E N T

1. These four appeals arise out of common judgment dated

16.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby the claim petition preferred by the three legal representatives of deceased Virender Yadav and the claim petition filed by injured Lal Singh were disposed of. Compensation of Rs.59,400/- was awarded in favour of Lal Singh, injured (Respondent no.1 in MAC.APP.651/2013) and compensation of Rs.7,53,500/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 to 3 in MAC.APP.662/2013. Two appeals (MAC App.651/2013 and MAC APP.662/2013) have been filed by the Insurance Company while the other two appeals (MAC.APP.73/2015 and MAC. APP.74/2015) have been filed by Smt. Neeraj against granting of recovery rights to the Insurance Company.

2. Before adverting to each of the appeal, it will be appropriate to mention a few facts. A Detailed Accident Report(DAR) was filed by SHO, P.S. Saket in respect of the motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.03.2011 at 2:50 p.m. at Press Enclave Road resulting in registration of FIR no.117/2011. As per the information given in the DAR, on 25.03.2011, Dinesh, deceased Virender Yadav and Lal Singh were carrying marble slabs from Satbari to New Friends Colony on a tempo bearing no.DL-1L-K-9789. Respondent Neetu Singh was driving the tempo and Dinesh was sitting beside him. Neetu Singh was driving the tempo at a very fast speed. A cyclist Ranjit was going ahead on the road. On seeing the cyclist and in order to avoid collision with the cyclist, Neetu Singh suddenly applied break. As a result, the persons sitting on the tempo(along with the marble slabs) got sandwiched in between the marble slabs. The injured were removed to the hospital, where Virender Yadav was reported brought dead. In respect of injured Ranjeet and Lal Singh, compensation of Rs.18,100/- and Rs.59,400/- respectively for having suffered injuries was granted whereas compensation of Rs.7,53,500/- was awarded in favour of legal representatives of deceased Virender Yadav.

3. For the sake of convenience, appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. in MAC.APP.651/2013 and MAC.APP.662/2013 shall be referred to as the Insurance Company and the Appellant in Cross-Appeals being MAC.APP.73/2015 and MAC.APP.74/2015 shall be referred to as the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.

4. The contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle covered by insurance policy (Ex.R3W1/A). As per the provision of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, risk towards the owner of the goods or the authorised representative of the owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle is covered only when the said owner/representative of the owner of the goods is travelling in the cabin along with the driver. It is urged that in the instant case, injured Lal Singh and deceased Virender Yadav were admittedly travelling in the rear portion of the tempo meant for carrying the goods alongwith the goods and therefore, their risk was not covered under the policy of insurance. In support of her contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the report of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268(SC). The learned counsel therefore, urges that the Claims Tribunal erred in making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation in the first instance with the right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle later on. It is stated that since injured Lal Singh and deceased Virender Yadav were travelling in the rear of the tempo along with the goods, they were not covered under the policy of insurance and the Insurance Company had no liability at all.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the owner submits that since the Insurance Company charged an additional premium for covering legal liability for operation and maintenance of two persons, the liability of two