JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This judgment will dispose of FAO No. 597 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Surinder Kaur), FAO No. 598 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Bharpur Singh), FAO No. 599 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Santa Singh), FAO No. 600 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Surjit Kaur and others), and FAO No. 601 of 1997 (Joginder Singh v. Smt. Pritam Kaur), as these appeals arise out of the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Panipat, dated 2.12.1996. 2. The claimants in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal raised a claim arising out of the motor accident which took place on 26.5.1993. The case set up by the claimants was that on 26.5.1993 at about 2 PM truck No. HR29/5457 driven by Hardyal Singh, deceased, had started its journey from Barnala to Bareli. Shri Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh, conductor, and one Bharpoor Singh were sitting on the left side of the driver. It was further the case of the claimants that Dalip Kaur, deceased, and Chand Singh were sitting on the rear seat of the truck. When the truck crossed village Siwah on the G.T. Road, all of a sudden Tata Four Wheeler bearing registration No. DDL 2775 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Joginder Singh, appellant, in the present appeals, came from the opposite Delhi side. It may be mentioned here that along with appellant Joginder Singh one Ajay Bijli, owner of Tata Four Wheeler and Insurance Company, are also appellants in the present appeals. The said Tata Four Wheeler tried to overtake a vehicle going ahead of it and in that process, all of a sudden, it came on the wrong side at a fast speed in front of the truck. The deceased Hardyal Singh, driver of the truck in order to avoid head-on collision, diverted the truck to his extreme left hand side. However, the truck was hit by the Tata Four Wheeler on its right side. As a result thereof, the truck turned turtle and on account of this accident, Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh conductor of the truck died at the spot. Dalip Kaur and driver of truck Hardyal Singh and other occupants in the said truck received multiple injuries. Dalip Kaur and Hardyal Singh later on died on account of the injuries suffered by them. Dalip Kaur and driver of truck Hardyal Singh and other occupants in the said truck received multiple injuries. Dalip Kaur and Hardyal Singh later on died on account of the injuries suffered by them. It was also the case of the claimants in all the claim petitions that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Four Wheeler which was being driven by Joginder Singh, who after the accident, ran away from the spot. Thereafter another Canter No. DDL/4486 which was coming from Delhi side also struck against the turned turtle truck. On account of the accident, FIR was lodged by one Darshan Singh. Appellant Joginder Singh was tried by the criminal Court. The Tata Four Wheeler was owned by appellant Ajay Bijli and same was insured with the United India Insurance Company. Santa Singh and Baldev Singh had claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs on account of the death of Smt. Dalip Kaur, who was travelling in the truck. Surjit Kaur widow of Hardyal Singh, deceased driver, along with her son Parbinder Singh, other minor children and the mother filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of Hardyal Singh. In the claim petition, compensation claimed was Rs. 5 lacs. Smt. Pritam Kaur alongwith Dalip Singh had claimed a compensation on account of the death of Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh being dependent on him. In their claim petition, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was also claimed Bharpoor Singh also filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. He had claimed that he received multiple fractures. Surinder Kaur filed a claim for a sum of Rs. 1,22,238/- on account of the damage caused to her truck. The basis for claim was repair charges and loss of earning for a period of 84 days as she was not able to ply the truck during that period. 3. Respondents driver Joginder Singh and Ajay Bijli, owner of Tata Four Wheeler in their joint written statement, admitted the accident in question and the factum of Dalip Kaur, Hardyal Singh and Malkiat Singh having died in the accident was also not disputed. 3. Respondents driver Joginder Singh and Ajay Bijli, owner of Tata Four Wheeler in their joint written statement, admitted the accident in question and the factum of Dalip Kaur, Hardyal Singh and Malkiat Singh having died in the accident was also not disputed. It was also stated that Bharpoor Singh had received injuries on his person and the damage to the said truck was also admitted, but it was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver Hardyal Singh himself. It was also the case of the respondents that a false criminal case was registered against Joginder Singh, who was not the driver of Tata Four Wheeler No. DDL-2275. A technical objection for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties was also taken. 4. The Insurance Company in its written statement admitted that Tata Four Wheeler was duly insured with it. It was also pleaded therein that the driver of the Tata Four Wheeler did not have a valid driving licence and that the owner had violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. On these pleas the Insurance company denied its liability to pay compensation. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed separately in each case :- "1. Whether the accident in question took place due to actionable rash and negligent driving of Joginder Singh respondent No. 1 while driving four wheeler bearing registration No. DDL-2775, during the course of employment of respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OP Parties. 4. Whether the claim petitions are not maintainable ? OPP 5. Relief". 6. On appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Joginder Singh, who was driving Tata Four Wheeler No. DDL-2775. On issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No 124 of 1003 (Santa Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others) awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the claimants. 7. On issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No 124 of 1003 (Santa Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others) awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the claimants. 7. In MACT Case No. 126 of 1993 (Surjit Kaur and others v. Joginder Singh and others), the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,97,000/- as compensation to the claimants of the deceased driver Hardyal Singh. 8. In MACT Case No. 151 of 1993 (Smt. Pritam Kaur and another v. Joginder Singh and others), the claimants who were parents of Malkiat Singh deceased alias Pala Singh, were granted a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. 9. In MACT Case No. 125 of 1993 (Bharpoor Singh v. Joginder Singh and others) the learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 10. In MACT Case No. 19 of 1994 (Surinder Kaur v. Joginder Singh and others), the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. one lac as compensation for damage caused to the truck. 11. The claimants in the above claim petitions were also granted interest @ 15% from the date of filing the claim petitions till realization. The liability was held to be joint and several. 12. On issue No. 3, it was held by the Tribunal that the driver had a valid driving licence as the Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence in support of its claim. On issue No. 4, it was held that the claim petitions were maintainable. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Joginder Singh and Ajay Bijli, appellants, made a feeble attempt challenge the findings on issue No. 1 by raising a plea that the version given by the claimants leads to a conclusion that in fact it was the truck driver, who was negligent as it was not for a smaller vehicle to hit a truck in a way so as to turn the same turtle. This argument deserves to be rejected straightway as it is not in dispute that the truck in fact had turned turtle and as a result thereof as many as three persons lost their lives. This argument deserves to be rejected straightway as it is not in dispute that the truck in fact had turned turtle and as a result thereof as many as three persons lost their lives. Even otherwise, the case of the claimants was that the driver of the truck tried his best to save the accident and in that situation, once the same is hit by a smaller vehicle i.e. Tata Four Wheeler, it was possible for the truck to turn turtle, which actually happened in the present case. Otherwise, there is no other challenge to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 holding therein that Joginder Singh, appellant, was driving Tata Four Wheeler bearing registration No. DDL-2275 in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel and affirm the findings on this issue. 14. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that it was admitted case of the claimants that Smt. Dalip Kaur, Chand Singh and Bharpoor Singh were travelling in the truck as passengers and, therefore, no liability to pay compensation on account of injuries and death caused to them, could be fastened on the Insurance Company as passengers are not allowed to travel in the truck and this act of Hardyal Singh driver in carrying them was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and another v. Mushtari Begum (Smt.) and others, (2004)8 SCC 667, wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "It is to be noted that in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2001)6 SCC 713, it was held that though the vehicle concerned was a goods vehicle yet the liability of the insurance company was not wiped out. The decision was subsequently reversed by a three- Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003)2 SCC 223, which was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, (2003)2 SCC 339. Recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004)2 SCC 1, the effect of the 1994 amendment vis-a-vis Section 147 of the Act was considered. It was observed as follows (SCC pp. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003)2 SCC 223, which was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, (2003)2 SCC 339. Recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004)2 SCC 1, the effect of the 1994 amendment vis-a-vis Section 147 of the Act was considered. It was observed as follows (SCC pp. 7-8 paras 17 and 19-20). "17. By reason of 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. 19. In Asha Rani 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 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 authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. 20. 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 authorised representative remains the same. 20. 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 authorised representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorised 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 was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people". In view of the law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court, it has to be held that the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner and driver on account of claim made against the death of Dalip Kaur as well as the injuries caused to Bharpoor Singh. However, the liability of the driver and owner of Tata Four Wheeler i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) is upheld in these cases. However, the liability of the respondents in respect of the claim on account of the death of Hardyal Singh and Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh is upheld and their appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 15. Resultantly, FAO No. 600 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Surjit Kaur and others), FAO No. 601 of 1997 (Joginder Singh v. Pritam Kaur and another) and FAO No. 597 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Surinder Kaur) are dismissed and the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is upheld. FAO No. 598 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and another v. Bharpoor Singh) and FAO No. 599 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Santa Singh and another) are dismissed qua respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, appeal qua appellant No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company in these cases, is accepted and it is ordered that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal about which there is no dispute to the respondent-claimants and insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court concerned. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court concerned. With the above observations, FAOs No. 598 and 599 of 1997 are disposed of. Appeal dismissed.