HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 2910 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.7.2005 passed by the Chairman I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 440 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 17.08.2000 when the claimant and others travelling in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 26 U 194 and 195 belonging to the first respondent, to attend agricultural work and when the said tractor reached near Nagambotla Khandriga Village H/o Idimepalli, V. Satram Mandal, the driver of the Tractor and Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and due to jerking, the trailer and tractor got detached and the trailer turned turtle. Due to which, the claimant received grievous injuries. The first respondent owner of the Tractor and Trailer remained ex-parte and the second respondent- insurer-United Insurance Company Limited, filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No. AP 26 U 194 by its driver, belonging to the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 17,050/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Court below wrongly fixed the liability only against the owner of the tractor and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the second respondent is also liable to pay the amount along with the first respondent. He also submits that the learned Judge failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order with regard to quantum of compensation, but as far as rate of interest is concerned, the same may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 17.08.2000 when the claimant and others travelling in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 26 U 194 and 195 belonging to the first respondent, to attend agricultural work and when the said tractor reached near Nagambotla Khandriga Village H/o Idimepalli, V. Satram Mandal, the driver of the Tractor and Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and due to jerking, the trailer and tractor got detached and the trailer turned turtle. Due to which, the claimant received grievous injuries. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence available on record held that due to injuries the claimant suffered and might not have attended to her work for one month and granted total compensation of Rs. 17,050/-. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards disability and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards medical expenses in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 42,050/- (17,050 + 15,000 + 10,000 = 42,050/-). 7. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] held that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Tribunals even the tort feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelines from such precedents is only to emphasise that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach.” 8. As far as the liability is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the liability only against the owner of the Tractor and Trailer. T h e Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. BALJIT KAUR, directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same by initiating a proceeding before the executing Court, without even filing a suit against the owner and the relevant portion is as under: “By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is ‘including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle’. The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words ‘any person’ occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as expression ‘any person’ contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorized representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. The observations made in this connection by the Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223) are as under: “In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words ‘any person’ must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e., ‘a third party’. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. In Asha Rani (supra), it has been noticed that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the 1988 Act speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994 Amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorized representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. “The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceedings”. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgments, and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 17,050/- to Rs. 42,050/- and reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. The insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261