Judgment :- D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) by the indemnifier insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited who is not very enthusiastic to reimburse the compensation payable by the owner of a lorry bearing No. MEW 4465 covered by the public carrier permit, contending that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, has committed an error in concluding that the appellant-insurer is liable to reimburse the owner and in fastening a joint liability to compensate the dependents of one Jayappa who without any dispute succumbed to some injuries he had sustained while attempting to board this goods carrier from behind. 2. The dependents-wife and two sons had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Act praying for awarding compensation being the loss of dependency due to the death of the breadwinner. 3. The second respondent-insurance company alone contested the claim petition, while the first respondent-owner of the vehicle did not respond to the issue of notice by the Tribunal and was placed ex parte. 4. The relevant paragraphs of the statement of objections filed by the insurance before the Tribunal reads as under: “Regarding column No.22 of the claim petition this respondent denies that on 24.3.2001 at about 2.30 pm the deceased Jayappa tried to board the lorry bearing regn.No.MEW-4465 near Chikkajala Kerekodu, at that time the diver of the lorry suddenly moved the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, reckless, endangering to human life and the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he was taken to Ashwini Hospital, Yelahanka for immediate treatment and he died at 6.30 pm on the same day. The petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The petitioner was not an employee under lorry owner and he was not entitled to board the lorry. The policy does not over risk to third parties. The petitioner is not entitled to any compensation from this respondent. This respondent submits that the alleged incident, if any, was attributed to the negligence of the deceased himself, which attempted to board a running lorry. The deceased was not entitled to board and travel in a goods vehicle. Hence the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation from this respondent and the petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. This respondent submits that the alleged incident, if any, was attributed to the negligence of the deceased himself, which attempted to board a running lorry. The deceased was not entitled to board and travel in a goods vehicle. Hence the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation from this respondent and the petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. The question with which we are concerned in the present appeal is one relating to the stand of the insurance company to the effect that the deceased person was not in the position of a third party vis-à-vis the vehicle covered by the policy issued by the insurance company and therefore there was no liability on the part of the insurance company as the policy was issued in terms of section 147 of the Act. 6. The Tribunal, however, rejected this stand of the insurance company placing reliance on a Judgment of this court in the case of ‘National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ningamma’ reported in ILR 1996 KAR 2213. 7. It is under such circumstances, the present appeal. 8. The appeal had been admitted and records had been called for. We have heard Sri Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.T. Gurudevaprasad, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 9. Submission of Sri Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant is two fold. It is firstly contended that the learned Judge has erred nay has committed an illegality in placing reliance on the Judgment rendered in the context of the provisions of section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 which was no more in vogue as on the date of the accident, which was on 24.3.2001; that the statutory provision which governed the claim application undisputedly being under section 166 of the Act and the procedure envisaged therein being not as under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has misdirected himself in placing reliance on a Judgment not relevant or applicable to the present set of facts and his error in law has vitiated the Judgment of the Tribunal and is liable to be set aside. 10. 10. It is secondly contended that the person who died due to his own, negligent, careless manner of trying to board a goods carrier not meant for carrying passengers and in the process while does not get into the vehicle, falls down and gets himself injured is definitely not a ‘third party’ within the meaning of this expression as it occurs in chapter-XI of the Act and at any rate, he cannot be taken to be a ‘third party’ for the purpose of a claim petition under section 166 of the Act, and therefore the claim petition should have been dismissed. 11. Submission of Sri Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased had no business to board a goods carrier vehicle; that a ‘third party’ is a person who in relation to the vehicle, get injured because of an act on the part of the driver of the vehicle which amounts to a tortuous act, due to the negligent driving of the vehicle, while being used on a public road if it is not factually so, then the initial injury and later death of the said Jayappa can never be attributed to either the diver or the owner of the vehicle as the diver did not have any duty or obligation of care towards a person like the deceased who was in no way connected with the vehicle either as a passenger or in any other capacity and with the vehicle not hitting the person and causing any injury to him, it cannot even be said that such a person was involved in an accident caused due to the use of the vehicle on the road and further due to the careless and negligent manner of driving by the driver of this vehicle and therefore submits there was absolutely no scope for working the policy of the insurance company in favour of a person like the deceased. 12. In the alternative, it is also submitted that if it should be taken to be that there is some liability and some negligence on the part of the driver, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased person himself has contributed and to the extent of his contribution by being negligent, the insurance company should be relieved of the liability to reimburse the insured. 13. 13. Per contra, Sri Gurudevaprasad, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants would urge that the deceased was very much in the position of a third party with the deceased being neither a first party nor second party and being person who got injured and ultimately succumbed to the injuries only because the person was trying to board the vehicle, whether goods vehicle or any other vehicle, but with the knowledge of the driver of the vehicle and particularly, when the driver had allowed or enabled the deceased person’s son to board the vehicle, the driver should have bestowed the degree of care and responsibility expected of him before moving the vehicle and a sudden movement of the vehicle even before the person had securely boarded the lorry only amounts to a negligent act the part of the driver and without dispute the falling and consequential injury and succumbing to the injuries being only because the driver of the vehicle gave an impression to the deceased that he could board the vehicle, enabled him to board the vehicle, but, nevertheless, moved it away, it cannot be said that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and therefore the tribunal though might have erred in relying upon the Judgment of this court in Ningamma’s case (supra) is nevertheless right in the conclusion that it has reached and therefore there is no need to disturb the Judgment and Award. 14. The only question is as to whether the deceased person could be characterized to be in the position of a third party vis-à-vis the vehicle and if so whether the policy is one which is meant to cover the risks of a owner of the vehicle of even a public carrier vehicle used on public roads. 15. 14. The only question is as to whether the deceased person could be characterized to be in the position of a third party vis-à-vis the vehicle and if so whether the policy is one which is meant to cover the risks of a owner of the vehicle of even a public carrier vehicle used on public roads. 15. The Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial piece of welfare legislation, any interpretation to be placed on the provisions of this Act should be only to promote the object and to ensure that the compensation which a person in the position of third party whether the very person who is injured or dependents of person who has succumbed due to the use of the vehicle on the road and due to the accident caused by such a vehicle is realized and should be to promote this object and to ensure that a person has suffered injuries or dependents of a person who have lost their dependency should be one to provide necessary compensation. The understanding and interpretation of the word ‘third party’ can be no different from this method/principle of interpretation. 16. The ‘third party’ is a person who is obviously not within the vehicle either as a driver or as an employee traveling in the vehicle or even as a passenger and in any way connected to the vehicle and in that connection traveling in the vehicle and so permitted by the provisions of the Act. 17. While it may be true that a goods carrier is neither designed nor permits passengers to be picked up for transportation on payment of fare, that in itself cannot be the end of the matter as we can even take judicial notice of the practice that the drivers of the goods carrier whether approved by the owner or otherwise do as a common practice carry passengers either inside or over the top of the cabin or even on the goods carried in the vehicle. 18. 18. It is also not uncommon in our country that even passengers vehicle designed to carry passengers, carry them on roof tops and in order to absolve the insurance company who has issued a policy specifically to meet the risks of the vehicle of a owner whose vehicle is used on the roads to deny a coverage to the owner which in turn only affects the third party claimant only by way of interpretation of the statute is an interpretation which should be avoided as it acts at cross purposes to the object of the legislation. 19. Even if the use of the vehicle was to any extent contrary to any stipulated condition of the user of the vehicle, until and unless the statute has also enabled the compulsory insurer to be absolved of such liability, we cannot read such a possibility/eventuality into the statutory provision. 20. Submission of Sri Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant in the present case is only that the deceased person was not in a position of third party. If the deceased person fits into the definition or understanding of the word ‘third party’, the matter ends there and therefore we are not inclined to disturb the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal awarding some compensation to the dependents of the deceased if so long as the person is in the position of a ‘third party’. 21. It is for this purpose, we have examined the position of the deceased and we find that the person was, in fact, on the evidence available on record, particularly, the deposition of the first claimant-wife of the deceased is to effect that the driver of the vehicle, in fact, had not only picked up son of the deceased but obviously was also enabling the deceased also to board the vehicle and for whatever reasons may be had moved the vehicle and it is in this process the person fell down, got himself injured and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 22. 22. If this is the factual position, it is obvious that while the driver might have been carrying out even an unauthorized act, the owner of the vehicle has to own up the unauthorized acts of the driver also and liability being vicarious on the part of the owner the moment the owner is found to be liable, there is no way of the insurance company escaping the requirement to reimburse the owner, particularly, with the policy that they and issued being earlier for the purpose of section 147 of the Act. 23. We find, in the instant case, that there is no way of we sparing the owner of the vehicle from the vicarious liability to compensate the claimants-dependents of the deceased, particularly, as it was a careless, negligent, irresponsible act of the driver of the vehicle which had a connection to the accident, in the sense, the falling down of the deceased in the process of boarding the vehicle and therefore hold that even if the driver was acting unauthorizedly, the owner, however, cannot be absolved of this liability and therefore the insurance company automatically has to obey and fulfill its legal obligation. 24. The present appeal being only at the instance of the insurance company also lacks punch in this regard as the owner has not joined issue. The insurance company however much it might have tried to wriggle out of the statutory provisions and on the contrary, we having found both on facts and law that there is no such scope and the deceased person being very much within scope of the phrase ‘third party’, vis-à-vis vehicle, there is no way for us to disturb the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal though it is not for the reasons as indicated by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 25. In so far as the argument of contributory negligence is concerned, though it is feebly urged by Sri Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the only question is as to whether the deceased was in the position of third party or otherwise and we having found that the deceased was in a position of a ‘third party’, there is no question of contributory negligence being examined at the instance of the insurance company. Even otherwise, we find that on facts, no contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased as we have already indicated above, the driver of the vehicle has not exercise the degree of care and caution that was required on his part even while performing an unauthorized act. Therefore, the argument inevitably fails and is rejected. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 27. The statutory deposit before this court is to be transmitted to the Tribunal. The insurance company to deposit the balance of award amount within four weeks before the Tribunal along with interest as indicated by the Tribunal. The disbursement to be made in terms of the Award of the Tribunal.