Judgment The award passed in MACTOP.No.889 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (PDJ), Pondicherrty, is under challenge in this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent in MACTOP.No.889 of 2005 (The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 312, First Floor, J.N.Street, Pondicherry). The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the claimants in MACTOP.Nos.885, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891 & 892 of 2005 are unauthorized travellers in the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-31-Z- 1647 with the trailer bearing registration No.TCF-6574, which involved in the accident on 19.06.2005 at about 10.00 am and the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident. 3. The Tribunal conducted a joint trial of all the above mentioned MACTOPs and during trial the petitioners have examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.8 respectively besides examining the doctor, who had treated them for the injuries sustained in the accident as P.W.9 and also exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.23. There was no oral or documentary evidence let in on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,500/-for the respondents in MACTOP.No.889 of 2005 and further directed the 2nd respondent / revision petitioner to pay the above said award of compensation. 4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since the respondent is an unauthorized passenger in the trailer bearing registration No.TCF-6574, which was attached to the tractor bearing registration No.TN-31-Z-1647 the insurance company / revision petitioner herein is not liable to pay any compensation and if at all the respondents is entitled any award the compensation that is to be borne by the first respondent in MACTOP.No.889 of 2005, the owner of the tractor and trailer, which involved in the accident. 5. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on AIR 2008 SC 460 (United India Insuracne Co. Ltd., Vs. Serjerao and others). The facts of the said case are that the claimants therein were travellers in a trailer attached to a tractor as labourers, which met with an accident, the claimants suffered injuries. The claimants filed petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur on the principle of no fault liability has awarded compensation. The facts of the said case are that the claimants therein were travellers in a trailer attached to a tractor as labourers, which met with an accident, the claimants suffered injuries. The claimants filed petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur on the principle of no fault liability has awarded compensation. The Insurance Company took a stand that it had no liability in respect of the persons travelling in the trailer and the owner of the tractor alone is liable to pay the compensation. But the said plea was rejected by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also rejected the appeal as not maintainable. But he referred the matter to a Division Bench, which inturn had referred it to a Full Bench. When the matter was pending consideration by the Full Bench, execution petitions were filed. Challenging the same Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court. The said Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the appeal before the Honourable Apex Court. While disposing of the appeal, the Honourable Apex Court held as follows:- "In a given case, the statutory liability of an Insurance Company, therefore, either may be nil or a sum lower than the amount specified under Section 140 of the Act. Thus, when a separate application is filed in terms of Section 140 of the Act, in terms of Section 168 thereof, an insurer has to be given a notice in which event, it goes without saying, it would be open to the Insurance Company to plead and prove that it is not liable at all. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that there can be more than one award particularly when a sum paid may have to be adjusted from the final award. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that an award for enforcing the right under Section 140 of the Act is also required to be passed under Section 168 only after the parties concerned have filed their pleadings and have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A Claims Tribunal, thus, must be satisfied that the conditions precedent specified in Section 140 of the Act have been substantiated, which is the basis for making an award. ...................... A Claims Tribunal, thus, must be satisfied that the conditions precedent specified in Section 140 of the Act have been substantiated, which is the basis for making an award. ...................... So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Brij Mohan and others [2007(7)SCALE 753] and it was held that the Insurane Company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the mattes to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court Smt.Yallwwas case (supra) and Brij Mohans case (supra)." 6. But the policy of pay and recovery was upheld in AIR 2007 SC 1971 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., VS. Brij Mohan & others) in the following terms:- " Although the effect of 1994 amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act did not call for consideration in Asha Rani case a three-Judge Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the said question in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur in the following terms: (SCC pp.7-8, paras 17-19) “17. By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is ‘including owner of the goods or his authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. 18. The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani case to which one of us, Sinha, J., was a party, however, bear repetition: (SCC p. 235, para 26) 26. 18. The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani 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-à-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 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 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 authorized representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.” ......... In the background of the statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of the third party and in respect of own damage claims.” ............ However, Respondent 1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of the third party and in respect of own damage claims.” ............ However, Respondent 1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned situation, although we reject the other contentions of Ms Indu Malhotra, we are inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to direct that the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realize the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act." 7. Following the above principle enunciated in the above ratio decidendi, I am of the view that the revision petitioner herein shall pay the award of compensation to the claimant and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 8. In the result, with the above observation, the revision is disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.