MACApp. 74/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAIBAM B.K.SINGH [1] Heard Mr. J.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ap pellant, Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Ins urance Company and Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant respondent. [2] This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22 .6.2001 passed in MAC Case No.139 of 2000 by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat. [3] The said MAC Case No.139 of 2000 was filed by the present respon dent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, under section 166 of the Mo tor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming for a just compensation in respect of the death of her husband, Ranjit Dutta, in a motor accident while he was travelling in a mini truck 407 bearing registration No.AS-03/7029 on 1.6.2000 at about 9.45 am on NH 39 at Nambor Reserve Forest. As per finding of the learned Member, Motor A ccidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, there was no dispute regarding the death of the said Ranjit Dutta, husband of the claimant in the said motor accident while he was travelling in the said mini truck on the said day, time and place. A ple a is found to have been taken by the owner of the vehicle( the present appellant ) to the effect that the motor accident happened without any fault or negligence from the side of the driver of the said mini truck. However, no evidence was pr oduced in respect of the said plea of the appellant-owner. There was also a fin ding to the effect that the vehicle was under a valid insurance coverage of the National Insurance Company Ltd. ( the respondent No.3 in this appeal) at the re levant time. Purportedly, on finding that the deceased was an unauthorized pass enger travelling in the said mini truck in clear violations of the terms and co nditions of the Insurance policy, the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tri bunal, Golaghat, held, vide the impugned judgment and award, that the owner of t he vehicle and not the Insurance Company was liable to pay the assessed compensa tion amount of Rs.4,15,000/- to the claimant. [4] Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 22.6.2 001, the owner of the said mini truck has filed this appeal. The only point, whi ch has been raised in this appeal for decision is whether the Insurance Company is also liable under the relevant law to pay the said compensation amount to t he claimant or not. [5] The question of liability of the Insurance Company in respect of gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is well settled. In Nationa l Insurance Company Ltd. vs, Baljit Kaur & ors., (2004) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Ape x Court held at para 20 and 21 at page 8:- 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of amendment of 1994, t he effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons ot her than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the sam e. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives would now b e covered by the policy of Insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not t he intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous, who were neither contemplated at the time of contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in plac e of the insurer, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree & & & & & & [6] So, there cannot be any dispute that the Insurance Company will not be liable in respect of the gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods veh icle. The finding of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golagh at, in the case was to the effect that the deceased was travelling in the said mini truck as a gratuitous passenger on that day at the relevant time. However, on careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award, in the light of the mater ials before the court, it is ascertained that no discussion is found to have bee n made in the impugned judgment and award about the fact of the deceased being t he owner of the goods in the said mini truck at the relevant time. In the claim petition, the claimant is found to have stated clearly that the deceased was tra velling in the said mini truck carrying his goods in it. In her application und er section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also, the claimant is found to ha ve stated to the same effect. The owner of the said mini truck is found to have admitted the said fact as seen from his written statement to the effect that the deceased, who was a vegetable vendor of Chowak Bazar, Golaghat, purchased veget ables from Sorupothar Market in large quantity and that he loaded the said veget ables in the truck. Though the owner did not give any evidence before the learne d Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, the above said admission ma de by the owner about the said fact in his written statement should have been co nsidered by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat. It is also to be noted that though the owner is found to have taken a plea to the eff ect that despite request made by the driver of the mini truck to the deceased no t to travel in the said truck , the deceased refused to comply with his request, no evidence is found to have been produced by the owner in that regard also. In its written statement, the Insurance Company did not deny the said plea of the claimant about the fact of the deceased carrying his goods/vegetables in the sai d mini truck at the relevant time. According to the Insurance Company, the relev ant insurance policy did not cover the risk of the deceased, who was travelling in the goods vehicle in as much as no additional premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle in that regard. It is, however, to be noted that the owner of th e goods was required to be covered by the policy of insurance effected under sec tion 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the relevant time. The claimant’s (P W-1) statement before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golag hat is to the effect that her husband, who was then dealing in vegetables, was c oming from Borpathar bringing vegetables in the said truck on the said day at th e relevant time. None of the O.Ps in the claim petition ( the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company) is found to have denied the said statement of the cla imant by way of cross-examination or by suggesting any fact to the contrary. [7] In the light of the above considerations, I am of the opinion t hat there are materials for making a reasonable conclusion to the effect that t he deceased was travelling in the said mini truck carrying his own goods/vegeta bles at the relevant time of the occurrence. In view of the absence of specific denial in respect of the said plea of the claimant as well as in respect of her statement before the Claims Tribunal, there was no need of producing any furthe r evidence from her side in that regard. So on the basis of the materials before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, it is ascertained that the decea sed was travelling in the said mini truck carrying his goods at the relevant ti me. It is well settled that as per existing provisions of section 147 of the Mot or Vehicles Act, 1988, owner of the goods is now covered by the policy of insura nce required to be effected in respect of a goods vehicle under the said Act ( N ational Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Baljit Kuar & ors. (2004) 2 SCC 1; Ramesh Kum ar vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 713). There is no dispute th at the said insurance policy in the present case was effected by the owner of t he said mini truck as required under section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Accordingly, the deceased, who was travelling in the said mini truck at the r elevant time with his goods/vegetables, was covered by the said insurance policy effected in respect of the said goods vehicle/mini truck under the said Act. Th ere is no acceptable reason as to why the Insurance Company in the present case should not be made liable for the compensation in respect of the death of the de ceased, who was travelling in the said mini truck carrying his own goods/vegeta bles at the relevant time. [8] In the light of the above discussions, the decision of the learn ed Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, to the effect that the Ins urance Company was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased/ husband of the claimant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the s aid decision in the impugned judgment and award is hereby set aside. This appeal is allowed. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in respect of the death of the deceased who was travelling in the said mini truck at the relevant time carrying his go ods/vegetables. The National Insurance Company Ltd. (the respondent No.3) shall pay the due compensation in the manner as directed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, in the impugned judgment and award regardin g payment of the compensation amount. [9] This appeal stands disposed of.