ORAL JUDGMENT :- The only point that arises for consideration in the matter is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of an insurance policy which is of the nature of trade policy/transit policy and whether the risk of occupant traveling in a passenger vehicle is covered in view of such insurance policy more specifically when the vehicle was being carried from manufacturer to a dealer. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal can be summarized in nutshell thus: Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the original claimants. On 31-7-1999 deceased Allauddin Kazi, a police inspector was travelling from Dhule to Shirpur for attending his duty by Mahindra Armada Jeep bearing No. MP15 TR H 893. A goods truck bearing registration No. MP14 B 4714 was parked in stationary condition on the road. The jeep gave dash to the said stationary truck from behind as a result of which Allauddin Kazi suffered serious injuries and died. The jeep belongs to Mahindra and Mahindra Company respondent No.8 herein. It was insured with appellant/respondent No.2. The claimants claim total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account of death of Allauddin Kazi. 3. Respondent No. I-manufacturer filed written statement and controverted the claim contending that the vehicle was insured for a period between 1-11-1998 to 31-10-1999. The vehicle was on its journey from Mumbai to Patiala. The company/manufacturer therefore denied its liability to pay compensation. 4. Respondent No.2 insurance company has controverted the claim by filing written statement. According to the insurance company, in view of the terms of the policy, the risk of third party is not covered. The policy is a 'Act Policy' and the same does not cover risk of the occupant of the vehicle. The jeep belonging to the original respondent No. l/manufacturer was being delivered to , the dealer and the said vehicle was having temporary passing. The occupant of the vehicle cannot be considered to be third party and in view of the terms of the policy, such risk is not covered. 5. The Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhule on receiving, evidence tendered by the parties came to the conclusion that the claimants have established their claim and as such by judgment and award passed on 10-2-2005 directed original respondent Nos. 5. The Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhule on receiving, evidence tendered by the parties came to the conclusion that the claimants have established their claim and as such by judgment and award passed on 10-2-2005 directed original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. manufacturer of the vehicle and the insurance company to pay jointly and severally the sum of Rs. 6,72,500/- to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. The judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule is being subjected to challenge in this appeal at the instance of appellant/insurance company. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the insurance company that the insurance policy issued in favour of the manufacturer being a trade policy/transit policy, the risk of the passenger carried in the vehicle cannot be covered in view of terms of the policy. It is contended that the passenger who was travelling in the vehicle cannot be considered as third party and as such risk in respect of death of such passenger cannot be said to have been covered and as such the insurance company/appellant is not responsible to meet the claim raised by the claimants. 7. Heard arguments advanced by Shri Gatne, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, Shri Padole, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Shri S. L. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No. 11. 8. It is contended that the certificate of registration of motor vehicle was in the nature of a trade certificate as contemplated by Rule 34 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The appellant places reliance on Rule 41 of the Rules of 1989 and contends that in view of the said rule, the. holder of a trade certificate shall not use the vehicle in a public place for any purpose other than "for proceeding to or returning from the premises of the dealer or the purchaser or of any other dealer for the purpose of delivery". Rule 42 of the Rules of 1989 lays down that "no holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent." Relying upon the aforesaid rules, it is contended that the vehicle could not have been used for carrying a passenger. Rule 42 of the Rules of 1989 lays down that "no holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent." Relying upon the aforesaid rules, it is contended that the vehicle could not have been used for carrying a passenger. As the use of the vehicle is in violation of the provisions of the rules, the appellant/insurance company shall not be held responsible for meeting out the claim. It is further contended that the deceased who was a passenger travelling in a vehicle cannot be termed as third party and in view of the provisions of the Act, insurance company is responsible to meet out only the third party claims. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have controverted the contention contending that the vehicle in question was not having a trade certificate but the competent authority i.e. the registration authority had issued temporary registration in respect of the vehicle as contemplated by section 43 of the Act. My attention is invited to Rule 2(g) which defines trade certificate as "trade certificate means a certificate issued by the registering authority under Rule 35. " The certificate shall have to be in Form No. 17. However, in the instant case, the certificate issued is not as contemplated in Form No. 17 of the Rules. 10. Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for issuance of temporary registration. Section 43 reads thus : "43. Temporary registration. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate or registration and a temporary registration mark. Temporary registration. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate or registration and a temporary registration mark. (2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable; Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body (or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner), the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow. (3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate or registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner." 11. I have perused the registration certificate placed on record. The certificate is a temporary certificate of registration as contemplated by section 43 of the Act. Reliance placed by the appellant therefore on Rule 34 and the argument based on interpretation of Rule 41 is not acceptable. Placing reliance on the certificate in respect of temporary registration, learned counsel for the respondents contend that sitting capacity mentioned in column No.4 of the said certificate is two and as such it is contended that it was permissible to carry the deceased in the vehicle in terms of the certificate of registration which prescribes sitting capacity of the vehicle as two. It is also contended by the respondents that the policy issued by the insurance company is an 'Act Policy' and it does not lay down any limitation in respect of gratuitous passenger and as such the risk in respect of death of Allauddin can be said to have been covered. It is also contended by the respondents that the policy issued by the insurance company is an 'Act Policy' and it does not lay down any limitation in respect of gratuitous passenger and as such the risk in respect of death of Allauddin can be said to have been covered. The only restriction that has been prescribed under the terms of the policy is in relation to limitation of use of the policy for "organised racing, pace making, reliability trial or speed testing". It is further tried to be canvassed that the insurance company cannot deny liability to meet the claim arising out of the death of Allauddin Kazi. I have perused the cover note which is placed on record by respondent No. 1 which is marked as Exh.26. Cover note provides that the insurance is of a category of "A policy" (Act only) and the nature of policy is further described as "road transit". As stated above, limitations prescribed in the policy are in respect of "organised racing, pace making, reliability trial or speed testing." 12. The appellant has placed on record a copy of insurance certificate with the permission of the Court. The document i.e. insurance certificate is not controverted by the respondents. However, objection was raised for presenting the document at the stage of admission. However, while considering the application tendered by the appellant, I have considered the objection and permitted the appellant to place the document on record. Purchase of policy in fact is not disputed. Respondents do not deny the genuineness or authenticity of the document i.e. certificate of insurance. The same therefore can be read in evidence. Moreover, the particulars noted in the certificate are identical in respect of the terms stated in the cover note. It appears on perusal of the certificate of insurance that the insurance was effective and the date of commencement and expiry of insurance was prescribed therein as "00 hours on 29-7-1999 from Nasik to till arrival at destination Patiala." 13. So far as limitation as to use is concerned, it is prescribed in the certificate that the policy is for use in connection with insured's business and the policy does not cover 1. use for hire or reward or for racing, pace making, reliability trial or speed testing, 2. use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and 3. use for hire or reward or for racing, pace making, reliability trial or speed testing, 2. use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and 3. use whilst drawing a greater number of trailors in all than is permitted by law. On perusal of the terms of the policy as well as cover note, it is clear that the policy was a road transit policy. Prima facie, it does appear that the policy was purchased for the purpose of delivery of vehicle from one destination to another. It was not contemplated under the policy to carry passengers in the vehicle and as such no risk appears to have been covered. The columns in respect of sitting capacity of passengers including driver in the cover note and sitting capacity in the certificate are kept blank. There is no indication that a premium is paid in respect of coverage of risk of passengers. The contention raised by the appellant that the policy was a road transit policy and the risk of passenger cannot be said to have been covered by virtue of said policy appears to be logical and acceptable. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS. Asha Rani and others, reported in 2002 AIR SCW 5259. The trial Court in its judgment has referred the case of Satpalsingh, reported in 2000(1) Mh.L.J (SC) 740 = 1999 AIR SCW 4337 with a view to draw analogy for holding the insurance company/appellant responsible. The trial Court has also referred to decision in Asha Rani's case however, has observed that no change has been brought in the legal position. The trial Court further recorded that the case of Asha Rani is only on the point of passenger being carried through the truck. The analogy derived by the trial Court on reference to the judgment in Asha Rani's case appears to be misconceived. The decision rendered in Satpal Singh's case has been specifically overruled by the Apex Court in Asha Rani's case. Liability of the insurance company in respect of death or injury of a passenger in a goods vehicle has been considered in the judgment. However, so far as the liability in relation to a passenger travelling in a public service vehicle has also been discussed. Liability of the insurance company in respect of death or injury of a passenger in a goods vehicle has been considered in the judgment. However, so far as the liability in relation to a passenger travelling in a public service vehicle has also been discussed. It is laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment thus : "26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis-avis 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 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. 27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the sue of the vehicle in a public place. Whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 28. An owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Court's decision in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh and ors., (2000) 1 SCC 237 is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paid." 15. It would be thus clear that for covering the risk of a passenger travelling in a vehicle meant for carrying passengers, the insured shall have to pay additional premium for coverage of such additional risk. The insurer would be liable to indemnity only in respect of limited liability provided for under the Act. If the same is to be enhanced under the insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. On perusal of the cover note or insurance certificate in the instant matter, it does not appear that the appellant has paid additional premium for covering the risk of passenger travelling in the transport vehicle. It was not contemplated in the instant matter for the reason that the policy purchased by the insured is only in the nature of road transit policy. The date of commencement of the policy and expiry of insurance as provided is from 29-7-1999 when the journey of the vehicle commences from Nasik until the vehicle reaches at destination Patiala. It was neither expected from an insured to carry passenger in the vehicle nor the policy which was purchased covers the said risk. Even the certificate of registration is of a temporary nature which was issued by the registering authority. Under these circumstances, it was not expected that the insured would carry passenger in the vehicle while the said vehicle was in transit journey from manufacturer to dealer. 16. Reliance is placed on the provisions of section 147 of the Act to contend that the risk of any person is covered. It is contended that it is the statutory liability of the insurer to meet out the claims in respect of death or injury of any person who was travelling in the vehicle in view of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Section 147 reads thus : "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. It is contended that it is the statutory liability of the insurer to meet out the claims in respect of death or injury of any person who was travelling in the vehicle in view of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Section 147 reads thus : "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) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (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 (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; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: 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) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely :(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand; Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons." It is contended by the respondents that the policy being 'act policy' shall have to meet the requirements as provided under section 147 of the Act and it would be the responsibility of the insurer to reimburse the claimants. The provisions of section 147 of the Act are analysed in Asha Rani's case and in view of the said decision, it cannot be said that the risk of such passenger travelling in a vehicle is covered under the policy when additional premium is not paid. In the instant case, the risk cannot be said to have been covered for the reasons that the policy itself was of a nature of road transit policy. No premium in respect of coverage of risk of the passenger was paid. Apart from this, the very registration of the vehicle was temporary and it was issued only for the purpose of transit of vehicle for transitory period for delivering the vehicle by manufacturer to the dealer. 17. The appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1822. It is contended by the appellant that risk of a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle cannot be said to have been covered in view of the insurance policy which is a statutory policy. It is laid down in the said judgment by the Apex Court thus : "21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case (supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. It is laid down in the said judgment by the Apex Court thus : "21. In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case (supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passengers." In view of the observations of the Apex Court as referred to above, the analogy drawn in Asha Rani's case which is a case in respect of passenger carrying in a goods vehicle, the same would have to be made applicable in respect of a gratuitous passenger being carried in other vehicles also. In the instant case although the vehicle was a passenger carrying vehicle, insurance was of a nature of transit insurance (' Act only' policy) and as such risk of a passenger travelling in the vehicle cannot be said to have been covered. 18. Reliance is also placed on judgment reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anjana Shyam and others, reported in 2007(6) Mh.L.J. (SC) 525 = 2007 A1R SCW 5237. It is contended that the expression 'any passenger' must be understood as passenger authorised to be carried in the vehicle and 'use of the vehicle' is permitted use of the vehicle. In the reported judgment the insurer denied its liability on the ground that more number of passengers than what was, permitted were being carried in the vehicle. The insurer therefore denied liability to pay compensation in respect of the passengers carried in the vehicle. It was tried to be canvassed on the basis of the analogy adopted in the said judgment that the expression 'any passenger' used in the section must be understood as passenger authorised to be carried in the vehicle. It is contended that in the instant matter, the permitted use of the vehicle was for carrying passengers and therefore the risk of a passenger travelling in the vehicle is deemed to have been covered in view of provisions of section 14 7(b )(ii) of the Act. 19. It is contended that in the instant matter, the permitted use of the vehicle was for carrying passengers and therefore the risk of a passenger travelling in the vehicle is deemed to have been covered in view of provisions of section 14 7(b )(ii) of the Act. 19. In view of analogy arrived at in Asha Rani's case as well as in Tilak Singh's case, the argument advanced by the respondents is not acceptable. Although the vehicle was a passenger carrying vehicle, the policy purchased by the manufacturer was itself a road transit policy. No premium for coverage of risk of passengers travelling in the vehicle was paid. The registration of the vehicle was for temporary duration. The object of purchase of policy was for delivery of vehicle from manufacturer to dealer. Considering all these factors, it cannot be held that the insurer is responsible to reimburse the claim. The directions issued by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhule holding the insurer liable to meet the claim is therefore illegal and will have to be quashed and set aside. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on judgment in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7149 and contends that as the insurer is a public limited company and manufacturer of the vehicle is in a position to meet the claim, the claimants would have no difficulty in recovering the awarded amount from the manufacturer. There is therefore no difficulty in putting the burden in respect of payment of compensation to the claimants on the shoulders of manufacturer. There can be no duel opinion about the proposition based on the reported judgment. It also cannot be denied that the original respondent No. 1 manufacturer is in a sound position to meet the responsibility in respect of payment of compensation to the claimants. The appeal thus shall have to be allowed. 21. The judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhule on 10-2-2005 is set aside to the extent of fixing the responsibility in respect of payment of compensation to the claimants on the shoulders of appellant/original respondent No.2. The other part of the award passed by the tribunal is maintained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.