JUDGMENT S. MANIKUMAR, J. Challenge in all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is that the claimants/injured travelled as gratuitous passengers in a goods carriage vehicle, there is a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the policy conditions and, therefore, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation is erroneous. 2. Assailing the common award, Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandiyan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the expression "any person" in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the case of gratuitous passengers, in goods carriage. 3. Inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in each of the claim petitions, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the respondents/claimants have themselves admitted in their claim petitions that they did not travel either as loadmen or as owner of the goods, the Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle has contested the claim petitions before the Tribunal and he is also on record in the present appeals. 4. Defending the awards, the Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants invited the attention of this Court to the oral testimony of one of respondents/claimants, Dhanapakiyam in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 51 of 2007, and submitted that on the fateful day, the owner of the vehicle, Thiru. Jahir Hussain had engaged the respondents/ claimants for labour and when they were travelling in his vehicle, it capsized due to the rash and negligent driving, causing injuries to the inmates. He submitted that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and therefore prayed to sustain the awards under challenge. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is just and necessary to extract Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act" for convenience) "147. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is just and necessary to extract Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act" for convenience) "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability: (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which - (a) (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or. arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-(a) (b) (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises...." "4. The said provision underwent an amendment in the year 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which reads as under: "147. The said provision underwent an amendment in the year 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which reads as under: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub­Section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; 7. Let me extract some of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter relating to claim by gratuitous passenger. Earlier the supreme Court in (2000) (1) SCC 237 : (200) 1 MLJ 115 held that the expression 'any person' used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would cover even a gratuitous passenger and consequently, held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. Subsequently, the said decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in (2003) 2 SCC 223 , where the Apex Court laid down the law that the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the legal representatives of a deceased gratuitous passenger or the injured, travelling in any goods vehicle. Para 26 of the judgment is extracted. "26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-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 the 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." 8. The decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani (supra) case was followedin (2003) 2 SCC 339 and again, in (2003) 9 SCC 66 Whether the Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation for the death or injury of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, came up for consideration before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Upon considering the effect of the amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, the Supreme Court at paragraph Nos. 17 to 20 observed as follows: "17. 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." "18. The observations made in this connection by the Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani (supra) Case to which one of us, SINHA, J., was a party, however, bear repetition:(SCC p.235, para 26) 26. "In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-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 the 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." "19. In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani (supra) 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 by 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. 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." 9. The same view was reiteratedin AIR 2004 SC 4882 : (2004) 8 SCC 517 , AIR 2004 SC 4360 : (2004) 8 SCC 667 , AIR 2004 SC 4338 : (2004) 8 SCC 697 ; (2005) 11 SCC 419 ; (2005) 12 SCC 243 ; 10. Short facts of the case as (2007) 3 MLJ 117 : 2007 (1) TN MAC 205 are as follows at p. 118 of MLJ: "The deceased was returning from his village Gokhia from Atarra in a tractor after delivering certain goods there. The tractor overturned due to rash and negligent of the driver, resulting in his death. Legal representatives claimed compensation. Adjudicating the claim petition, the Tribunal did not accept the plea of the insurer that there was violation of terms of the policy issued to the insured. The tractor overturned due to rash and negligent of the driver, resulting in his death. Legal representatives claimed compensation. Adjudicating the claim petition, the Tribunal did not accept the plea of the insurer that there was violation of terms of the policy issued to the insured. The Tractor could only be used for agricultural work. Since the same was used for carrying passenger, the insurer was not responsible to indemnify any award and to pay the same to the claimants. The Tribunal rejected the plea and following Satpal Singh (supra), held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. On appeal, the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Hence, the said decision was challenged before the Supreme Court." 11. Referring to the provisions dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company and various decisions the supreme Court at Para 13 held that, "13. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor." 12. In (2007) 7 SCC 56 : (2007) 5 MLJ 312 relied on by the Tribunal in the present appeals, for issuing a direction to the appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover from the insurer, the claimant was a labourer. He was travelling in a trolley attached to a tractor. There was a dispute as to whether both the tractor and the trolley were insured or not. The earth dug was loaded on the trolley attached to the tractor and the claimant, was sitting on it. The workers were returning to a brick kiln. The tractor was allegedly driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. The claimant, who sustained injuries in the gall bladder and left thigh, claimed compensation. 13. The defence raised before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company inter alia were (i) the trolley was not insured and only the tractor was insured, (ii) as the tractor was not being used for agricultural work, the claim petition was not maintainable, (iii) premium was paid only for one person viz., the driver of the tractor and therefore no award can be passed against the insurer to compensate a gratuitous passenger. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the challenge before the Supreme Court. Following the earlier decisions, on the question of fastening liability on the Insurance Company, to pay compensation for the death or injuryin AIR 2006 SC 1576 : (2006) 4 SCC 404 : (2006) 2 MLJ 422; AIR 2007 SC 1563 : (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 4 MLJ 257; (2007) 5 SCC 428 : (2007) 2 MLJ 1230 and other cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal position that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of gratuitous passengers. 14. The operative portion of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. P. Chinnamma (supra), as extracted at paragraph No. 9in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Mohan and Others (supra) is as follows at p. 314 of MLJ: "9. In National insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma (supra) this Court held: (SCC pp.701-02, paras 14-16) "14. An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorised representative travelling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from 14.11.1994 i.e. from the date of coming into force of amending Act 54 of 1994. 15. Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The expression 'goods carriage' has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean 'any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods' whereas 'tractor' has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean 'a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road roller'. 'Trailer' has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean 'any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.' 16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to. be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. The tractor was meant to. be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of 'goods carriage' as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani (supra) and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991 i.e. much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment." 15. In (2008) 1 SCC 423 : (2008) 1 MLJ 66, the Supreme Court has once again discussed the issue threadbare and held as follows at p. 69 of MLJ: "The act does not contemplate that a goods carriage 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 authorised representative. She 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, and the insures would not be liable therefor. The words "injury, to any person " in Section 147(1)(b) would only mean a third party and not a passenger travelling in a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise." 16. In (2008) 1 MLJ 151 : (2008) (1) TN MAC 59, two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Manipur. On consideration of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation. In (2008) 1 MLJ 151 : (2008) (1) TN MAC 59, two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Manipur. On consideration of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation. The Insurance Company assailed the common judgment on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Tata Truck, a goods vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The High Court accepted the plea and held that the Insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. The claimants/appellants before the Supreme Court contended that the High Court ought to have directed the Insurer to pay the compensation and recover the amount from the insured. Rejecting the said contention, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation. However, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the High Court for the limited purpose of fixing the responsibility of the person, who has to satisfy the award made by the Tribunal. 17. The judgment rendered in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vedwati and Others (supra), and other cases referred to in the forgoing paragraphs were followed by the Supreme Court in yet another decision in (2008) 5 MLJ 710 : 2008 (1) TN MAC 348. In the reported case, the claimant wa travelling in a goods carriage, as a gratuitous passenger. She was not travelling in the goods carriage, in the capacity of the owner of goods or as a representative of the owner of goods. The aspect was also accepted by the claimant in the claim petition. However, a direction was issued by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and indemnify the owner. The said order of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court. Setting aside the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that it is open to the claimant to recover the amount awarded from the owners of the offending vehicles. 18. The facts of the case in a unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7805 of 2002, National Insurance Company Limited v. Bhukya Tara and Others, are that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle. The Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal and the said award was affirmed by the High Court. By order dated 8.5.2008, the Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court. 19. The Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal and the said award was affirmed by the High Court. By order dated 8.5.2008, the Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court. 19. In a subsequent case, in National Insurance Company Limited v. Kaushalaya Devi and Others, the deceased was travelling in a truck, as an unauthorised passenger and the truck was a goods carriage. The award of the Tribunal holding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation was upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance company contended that as the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and since the driver of the vehicle did not possess an effective driving licence, the High Court should not have confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle contended that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and had been travelling in the truck for collecting empty boxes and, therefore, he was not a gratuitous passenger. It was further submitted that as the Insurance Company had already deposited the amount of compensation, right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle ought not to have been granted. While accepting the plea of the insurance Company, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court by the judgment dated 13.5.2005, allowed the appeal preferred by the insurance Company and further held that if the amount deposited by the Insurance Company had since been withdrawn, by the first respondent i.e., claimant, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the same in the manner specified by the High Court. But if the same had not been withdrawn, the deposited amount be refunded to the Insurance Company and proceedings for realisation of the amount may be initiated against the owner of the vehicle. 20. The decisions of the Supreme Court, extracted in the foregoing paragraphs leaves no doubt that the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death or injury to any gratuitous passengers. The question to be considered is - whether the Tribunal is right in construing that the directions grantee by the Supreme Court in a particular case under Article 142 of the constitution, have to be followed as a precedent. 21. The question to be considered is - whether the Tribunal is right in construing that the directions grantee by the Supreme Court in a particular case under Article 142 of the constitution, have to be followed as a precedent. 21. In this regard, it would be useful to extract Pare 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 1899 : (2006) 5 SCC 72 : (2006) 4 MLJ 870 , and reads as follows at p. 884 of MLJ: "23. One word before parting. Many a time, after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/order is in exercise of power under Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that Courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/relaxation made while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court, incongruously the exemption/relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law declared by this Court. The Courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Article 142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of the order is in exercise of power under Article 142. Be that as it may." 22. Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, confer an extraordinary jurisdiction on the highest Court of the land to issue any directions and exercise their powers to do complete justice and other Courts do not have similar powers and any attempt to exercise such extra-ordinary power would lead to incongruous and disastrous results. 23. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is necessary to examine as to whether the respondents/claimants have proved that they travelled either as loadmen or as owners of the goods in the vehicle bearing registration No. TN.49-H-7817, on the date of accident. 23. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is necessary to examine as to whether the respondents/claimants have proved that they travelled either as loadmen or as owners of the goods in the vehicle bearing registration No. TN.49-H-7817, on the date of accident. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 51 of 2007 (M.CO.P. No. 245 of 2002), it is the specific case of the respondent/claimant that she had come to Orathanadu along with other villagers and when she was returning to her native place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, the vehicle capsized, resulting in injuries. The respondent/claimant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52 of 2007 (M.CO.P. No. 246 of 2002), was aged about 14 years, at the time of accident. He was a student. According to him, he had accompanied his parents to buy a geometry box and when he was returning with his parents to his native place in the above said vehicle, he sustained injuries. The respondent/claimant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 53 of 2007 (M.C.O.P. No. 247 of 2002) was again a minor aged about 16 years. She was a student at the time of accident. In this appeal, she had accompanied her parents to buy note books and when they were returning to their native place, near Okkanadu Maliyur Village, the vehicle met with an accident. The case of the respondent/claimant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 50 of 2007 (M.C.O.P. No. 248 of 2002) is similar to that of Dhanapakiyam in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 51 of 2007. 24. In the counter affidavits, the appellant/Insurance Company has raised a common defence denying their liability to indemnify the insured in respect of gratuitous passengers. In addition to that, the appellant/Insurance Company has disputed the age, nature of injuries and also the quantum of compensation. According to them, the offending vehicle Bajaj Tempo Van was only a goods carrying light Motor Vehicle, intended to be used for the purpose of carrying goods and that it can carry only two persons including the driver and the seating capacity was provided only for two persons. Carrying gratuitous passengers in the said vehicle would amount to breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and violation of permit conditions, and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. 25. Carrying gratuitous passengers in the said vehicle would amount to breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and violation of permit conditions, and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. 25. Placing reliance on the First Information Report, the appellant/Insurance Company has further contended that as per the First Information Report, Bajaj Tempo Van was engaged as a share auto for the purpose of carrying passengers from Orathanadu to Okkanadu Meliyur Village. They have further submitted that inasmuch as the respondents/claimants travelled in a tempo van, either as owners of goods or as loadmen/load women or employed in accordance with the contract of employment either under the owner of the goods or under the owner of Bajaj Tempo Van, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 26. Bare reading of the claim petitions discloses that on 24.3.2002, after completion of their work at orathanadu, respondents/claimants in M.C.O.P. Nos. 245 to 247 and the kith and kin of others, were returning from Orathanadu to their respective native places in the goods carriage vehicle. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondents/claimants in their petitions that they travelled in the tempo van as owners of any goods or as loadmen/loadwomen or employed during the course of a contract of employment under the owner of Bajaj Tempo Van, the second respondent in these appeals. Though the owner of the vehicle has contested before the Tribunal, in all the claim petitions, no documentary evidence has been let in either by the claimants or by the owner of the vehicle to bring them under the coverage of insurance policy. On the contrary, R.W.1, Assistant Administrative Officer of the appellant/Insurance Company has categorically deposed that the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle covered under Exhibit P-1, Policy, in which there is a specific condition that gratuitous passengers should not be permitted. Admittedly, the respondents/claimants in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 52 and 53 of 2007 were students at the time of the accident and therefore, their contention that they were loadmen or owners of the goods is liable to be rejected. 27. Admittedly, the respondents/claimants in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 52 and 53 of 2007 were students at the time of the accident and therefore, their contention that they were loadmen or owners of the goods is liable to be rejected. 27. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that there is sufficient oral evidence let in by Dhanapakiyam to prove that she was engaged as a labourer, is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the oral evidence is without pleadings and contrary to the averments made in the claim petitions. It is her admitted case that when she was returning from Orathanadu, after completion of her work, the accident had occurred. Whereas, before the Tribunal she has given a different version, as if the second respondent/the owner of the vehicle had engaged her as collies. 28. Considering the over all evidence and the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court, I have no hesitation to conclude that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in law holding that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the tortious act committed by the owner of the vehicle. The expression of "any person" used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been well explained in the decisions of the Apex Court and it does not include "unauthorised/gratuitous passengers." Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation relying on the decisions reported is liable to be set aside. Even in the said reported decision relied on by the Tribunal, the quantum of compensation was restricted to only the liability under the policy. As the owner of the vehicle, second respondent is already on record, the respondents/claimants, in each of the claim petitions, can proceed against him for realisation of the award amount in each of the claim petitions in accordance with law. Accordingly the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the insurance Company is set aside and they are absolved from payment of compensation. All the appeals are allowed as indicated above. Consequently, connected M.P. are closed. No costs. Appeal allowed.