IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Lakhan Lal Vs. The United India Assurance Co.& Anr. (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2558/2006) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Date of Judgment: August 13, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, for the appellants. Mr. N.S. Chauhan, for respondents. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the award dated 4-5-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dholpur (`the learned Tribunal' for short) the owner of the offending vehicle has challenged the said award. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-6-2004 Jogesh Kumar, who used to supply chalk to different schools, was travelling with his goods in a tempo, bearing registration No.RJ-11G-0194, from Dholpur to Badi. The driver of the said tempo drove the tempo in such a rash and negligent manner that the tempo turned turtle. Consequently, due to which Jogesh Kumar suffered grievous injury on his left leg. Eventually, his left leg was amputated. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to prove its case, he examined himself as witness and exhibited thirty one documents. The respondents, including the appellant before this Court, examined three witnesses and exhibited one document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimant, but has granted the recovery right to the Insurance Company. Since the appellant is aggrieved by grant of recovery rights to the Insurance Company, he has filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the fact that the tempo was insured as goods vehicle. Admittedly, Jogesh Kumar was travelling with his own goods as the owner of the goods. Therefore, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (`the Act' for short), the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No.1, has contended that since no premium was charged by the Insurance Company for covering the owner of goods as a passenger, the Tribunal has correctly given recovery rights to the Insurance Company. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the material available on record and perused the impugned award. 6. A bare perusal of the award clearly reveals that the appellant had taken the plea that Jogesh Kumar was not only owner of the goods, but was also hired as labourer on goods vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal has disbelieved the fact that Jogesh Kumar was hired as labourer on the goods vehicle. Therefore, it has held that although Insurance company shall pay the compensation, but it can recover the said amount from the appellant. 7. Although learned Tribunal is justified in rejecting the plea of appellant, but the learned Tribunal should have also considered the fact that another defence was available to the appellant under the Act. Under Section 147 of the Act the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation for death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of goods carried in the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured as goods vehicle. Undisputedly, according to the appellant and according to claimant, the claimant was owner of the chalk which was being transported in the vehicle. Thus, he was travelling in the capacity of owner of goods. Hence, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation under section 147 of the Act. 8. Even if a defence has not been taken by the appellant and yet the defence is legally available to the appellant, learned Tribunal should have considered the same. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal is not justified in granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company. 9. The learned Tribunal cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, a purposive interpretation of law has to be applied. Liability to pay compensation, according to Section 147 of the Act, has to be given effect to, even if a plea under Section 147 of the Act has not been raised by the owner of the offending vehicle. 10. Hence, this appeal is, hereby, allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant, but shall have no right to recover the same from the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn