APPELLANT N.A. No. 1 Versus RESPONDENTS 1 . Agglicant RESPONDENT N.A. 2 RESPONDENTS 4. N.A. 4 about 3O years R/o village Bhaiya M“ SB: HON’BLE SIRI JUSTICE N.K. .AGARWAL ORAL ORDER (20-8-2009’ Shri A.K. Athale, Advocate for the appeliant. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Adv. for respondent No. 1L 2. HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH BILASPUR M.A. No. 32512002 The On‘ental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bilaspur Ekram Khan, S/d Shamililla Khan aged about 35 years, R/o village Bhaiya Than, Tahsil Smajpur, Distt‘ Surguja Akhileshwar Prasad Son of Nanhu Sao, aged about 3S years, R/o village Surguja Bhaiya Than, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt,’ Fakuu‘ Chand son of Hartool Mal Agrawal aged about 45 yeam, R/o village Ketaka Road, Sma'pur, Tahsil Vijay Kumar son of Amar Singh, aged Than, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja RESPONDENTS 3. N.A. 3 Sumjpur, Distt. ,Surguja This is the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against thexaward dated 19-12-2001 passed 1'11 Claim Case No. 52/2001 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Trinbunal, Baikunthpur Camp Court at Surajpur whereby and Whereunder an award of Rs. olding the 12,000/— has been passed in favour of the claimant h appellant/insurance company liable for its payment; 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the claimant preferred an application under Section. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (brieriy, the Act) claiming Compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs against the injuries sustained in the accident dated 1-2-1995. According to the claimant, he was sitting in the Tata truck bearing registration No. MP 27 60671 along with his goods and he was going to Org Bazar. Near Kala Manjan Nala due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, the said truck turned turtle. In pursuance of the said accident, he sustained injuries. ‘ “‘hvv 4. Respondents No. 2 and 4 remained exparte before the Tribunal. The appenant / insurance company contested the claim and denied its liability to pay any compensation to the claimant on the ground that the claimant was sitting in the 1ruck as fale paying passenger and for that, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence and .materia] placed before it, passed the award of Rs. 12,000/— along with interest against the appellant/insurance company. 5. Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company would submit that admittedly the claimant was sitting in the truck i.e. goods vehicle as a gatuitous / non-gratuitous passenger for which the appellant is not statutorily liable under Section 147 of the Act; nothing has been brought on record by the claimant / owner of the vehicle that by taking extra premium such risk has been covered by the insurance policy and, therefore, liability fastened upon the insurance company deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 / claimant would submit that the claimant was sitting in the truck along with his goods and therefore, in View of the amendment in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act, the insurance company is statutorily liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned award. 8. This fact was not denied by the claimant that at the time of accident, 10 to 15 persons were sitting in the truck and the Claimant was one of them. In para 4 of his statement, he admits that on that day, 10 to 15 persons were sitting in the truck as at that time bus was not available. It is not the case Where it can be said that the claimant hired the truck and was sitting in the truck along with hi goods. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited —v- Cholleti Bharatamma and others reported in (2008' 1 SCC 423 in para 8 has categorically held that the Act , N H s does not contsmplate that a goods cahiage shall carry a large number of passengers with small percentage of goods as considerably the insurance policy covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative. A bare perusal of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act would reveal that the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle is the only person who is statutorily covered under the provision of the Act and not the owners of the goods or their authorized representatives. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, the learned Tribunal Went wrong in fastening the liability upon the appellant /1nsurance Company and the same finding deserves to be set aside. 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the claimant Was travelling in the truck as gratuitous passenger and in that view of the matter, the appellant herein was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned award cannot be sustained! However, it is directed that in case, during the pendency of this appeal, if any amount has been deposited by the appellant] Insurance Company and disbursed to the claimant, then the appellant [insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the same n‘om the owner of the vehicle, and for that no separate proceeding is required to be filed. As far as the amount which has not been paid to the claimant, the claimant is free to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 13. However, there shall be no order as to costs. g Stil— ’4‘ i N. K, Agai'wal Judge