THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2825 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order, dated 17.01.2003, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.425 of 1999 filed by the first respondent-claimant claiming compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 01.11.1997 at about 1.00 PM when he was boarding a lorry bearing No.AP-37-T-8379 at the bus stop, the driver of the said lorry suddenly started jerking the vehicle, due to which, he fell down and the back wheel of the lorry ran over on his legs and he sustained fracture injuries. The appellant- insurer and the second respondent-owner of the said lorry filed counter-affidavits denying the averments made in the petition. By the order under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation payable by the appellant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally. Disputing the liability, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant-insurer because the first respondent was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. BALJIT KAUR[1] and in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. BOMMITHI SUBBHAYAMMA[2] wherein it was held as under: “in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), this Court while overruling Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1(SC), has clearly held that the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation for death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle….. The question again came up for consideration before a 3-Judge Bench of this Court, of which we are members, in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), wherein upon considering the effect of amendment carried out in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, it was opined: “By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is, ‘including owner of the goods or his authorised 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 authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of 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 Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the 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 authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (Sc) to which one of us, Sinha J, was a party, however bear repetition: 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 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’. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry at the time of accident and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The dispute is with regard to fastening the liability on the part of the appellant-insurer. The appellant-insurer resisted the claim of the claimant on the ground that it had no liability to pay compensation to him as he sustained injuries when he was trying to board the lorry at the bus stop and therefore, he is a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. Therefore, following the judgments of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’s case (1 and 2 supra), this Court is of the view that the appellant-insurer had no liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal since the claimant was travelling in a lorry as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident. 4. Accordingly, the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the owner of the crime vehicle is liable to pay the same. The appellant-insurer is at liberty to take steps to recover the amount, if any paid, from the owner of the vehicle. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification to the order impugned, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.08.2010 sj [1] (2004) 2 SCC 1 [2] 2005 ACJ 721