JUDGMENT

Both these appeals are filed by the appellant -

insurance company questioning the liability fastened on the appellant - insurance company on the ground that the seating capacity of the offending mini goods lorry bearing No.KA-14-A-0543 is 1+1 and does not cover the risk of coolie / employees other than the seating capacity.

Brief facts:

2. On 17.12.2006 at about 4.00 p.m., the claimants were traveling in the offending mini goods lorry bearing No.KA-14-A-0543 from Mysuru to Bangalore. The driver of the said mini lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, when the vehicle came near Induvain Village on Bangalore-Mysore Road, the said lorry dashed against a person who was going on the left side of the road and ran over the lump and then turtled towards the right side of the road. Due to the impact, the claimants sustained grievous injuries.

3. Hence, claim petitions were filed by the claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petitions in part, and awarded compensation to the claimants and held the appellant-

insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record.

5. The respondents were served but they remained unrepresented.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant –

insurance company submitted that the claimants have traveled in the mini goods lorry from Bangalore to Mysore sitting on the load and as per Registration Certificate, the seating capacity of the lorry is 1+1 only, hence, does not cover the risk of the coolies / employees. Further, submitted that the claimants are engaged only for loading and unloading purpose but they were not supposed to travel along with goods from Mysore to Bangalore. Therefore, if any extra premium is collected in respect of employee that is only to travel within the city for loading and unloading. But in the present case, the lorry was coming from Mysore to Bangalore, which means from one city to another city. Even as per Rule 10C of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'KMV Rules' for brevity), it is not permissible. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that where the seating capacity is 1 + 1 only, any extra persons traveling in the goods vehicle the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner, therefore prays to allow the appeals by setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

8. The undisputed facts in the present case is that the claimants were traveling in the mini goods lorry bearing No.KA-14-A-0543 from Mysore to Bangalore with a load of rava to unload at Bangalore and the lorry met with an accident near Induvain Village on Bangalore- Mysore Road. The Tribunal had determined compensation and fastened liability on the insurance company on the ground that as per Rule-100 of the KMV Rules persons are permitted to travel in the goods vehicle and also extra premium is paid upto to Rs.50/- for non-passenger. Therefore, on these two grounds fastened liability on the insurance company.

9. As per Section-147 of the MV Act, the insurance policy must compulsory cover the risk of any third party in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or authorised representative goods in goods carriage vehicle. Therefore, as per Section-147 of MV Act, there is compulsory coverage in respect of persons carried in any goods vehicle, along with goods as authorised representative of the owner or to the owner of the goods.

10. In the present case, the claimants are not owners of the goods but they were traveling in the mini goods lorry along with goods for loading and unloading purpose traveling from Mysore to Bangalore. Therefore, the claimants are to be considered, as they are traveling as authorize