Judgment 1. This appeal is by the owner questioning the liability held against him in the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.546/2004 dated 9.10.2007 on the file of M.A.C.T., Mangalore, Dakshina kannada District. 2. Facts leading to this case are that, claimants – the parents, brother and sisters of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest for the death of one Naveen, who was traveling in a vehicle bearing No.TCR-KA-19-TC/2002-03/7, a Maruthi Car, which was brand new car and was not yet permanently registered. The said vehicle dashed against the culvert near Hiresave hobli on Bangalore-Mangalore road, as a result of which, the driver as well as Naveen died due to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was an earning member of the family. 3. The said claim petition was opposed by the insurer interalia disputing its liability, on the ground that the policy issued was only for the trade purpose and there is no liability to pay the compensation for the death or injury of a stranger, who was traveling in the said vehicle. The Tribunal on the basis of these pleadings, though determined the compensation at Rs.2,02,000/-, however, held that the owner-appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation and absolved the insurer from its liability. It is against this finding, the owner of the vehicle is before this Court. 4. Facts, which are not in dispute, are that, the policy of the vehicle is a Trade policy and it is also not in dispute that the deceased was traveling in the said vehicle and died due to the injuries that he suffered in the road accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, though the policy is a trade policy, however, the said policy is subject to Clause 21, 24, 28, 41, 59 and 60 of the IMT and in terms of Clause 51 and 60, it covers the risk of the Director, Member, employee driver and use of the vehicle is permitted for domestic/pleasure purpose. Domestic and pleasure purpose means and includes the coverage of risk of the occupants of the car. He also submitted that, the owner of the vehicle has also paid extra premium and as such it covers the risk of the person other than the risk of the driver and employer. Domestic and pleasure purpose means and includes the coverage of risk of the occupants of the car. He also submitted that, the owner of the vehicle has also paid extra premium and as such it covers the risk of the person other than the risk of the driver and employer. He further submitted that once the vehicle could be used for the pleasure or domestic purpose, the insurer cannot escape the liability on the ground that it is a trade policy and risk of the persons traveling is also covered. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that, trade policy is granted only for the purpose of the trade of the motor vehicle, it is not a private car or a public car, it was not yet registered. It is only to facilitate the dealer of the motor vehicle to transport such vehicles, the trade policies are given if during transportation of the car accident takes place the risk of the driver is covered. Clauses 59 and 60 does not cover the use of the vehicle for carrying the passengers or any other person in the said car except using it for demo or use by the Director or Member of driver. Limited risk covered under the policy viz., employee, third party and damage to the vehicle a well not cove r the risk of any other person. He referred to Clauses 59 and 60 of the IMT and submitted that, on extra payment it covers the use of the vehicle for demo purpose, the risk of a person, who has been permitted to drive the car with permission of the insured risk of such person is covered and not every person occupying the car. Clause 59 refers only to the Member, Director and employee i.e, driver. In this case, the deceased was neither a driver nor an employee, he was a mason and friend of driver and such person’s risk is not covered. 7. In the light of the submissions made above, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the risk of the occupant of car is covered under the trade policy/ 8. It is not in dispute that the policy is a trade policy. Policy refers to the clauses 21, 24, 28, 41, 59 and 60. More relevant clauses are clauses 59 and 60, which are extracted herein below: IMT. 59. It is not in dispute that the policy is a trade policy. Policy refers to the clauses 21, 24, 28, 41, 59 and 60. More relevant clauses are clauses 59 and 60, which are extracted herein below: IMT. 59. PRIVATE USE OF VEHICLE BY MEMBER/DIRECTOR/EMPLOYEE OF THE INSURED (Motor Trade only) In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs…….. and notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary it is hereby understood and agreed that this Policy shall be operative whilst the vehicle insured is being used by the insured or with the permission of the insured by a Member Director or employee of the insured for social domestic or pleasure purposes. Whilst the vehicle insured is being so used the insurer will in terms of and subject to the limitations of and for the purpose of Section 11 of this policy treat as though he were the insured person using the vehicle insured provided that such person: 1. is not entitled to indemnity under any other policy: 2. shall as though he/she were the insured observe fulfill and be subject to the terms provisions conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they apply. 3. has not been refused any Motor Vehicle Insurance or continuance thereof by any insurer. Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of this Policy. IMT.60.DEMONSTRATION-DRIVING EXTENSION (Applicable to Motor Trade Policies Only) In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs…….and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein it is hereby understood and agreed that the policy shall be operative whilst the vehicles are being driven for the purpose of demonstration by person(s) not in the employment of the insured provided he/she/they is/are driving with the insured’s permission and is/are accompanied by the insured or by any person(s) in the insured’s employment. Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of this Policy. 9. Under clause 59 on payment of additional premium, a policy covers the risk of Director, Member Director or an employee of the insured for use of vehicle with the permission of the insured to use the vehicle for social, domestic or pleasure purpose. It does not mean that the car, which is yet to be registered as private or public vehicle could be used for transportation of passenger. It does not mean that the car, which is yet to be registered as private or public vehicle could be used for transportation of passenger. All that the said Clause shows is that, in case of payment of additional premium, it covers the risk of the Director or Member or an employee of the insured, who use the car for the purpose of domestic or pleasure, with permission of insured and in case of the accident the risk of such person is covered. It is not in dispute that the policy is trade policy. The deceased in this case was neither the director nor employee or driver. There is no evidence of any permission of the insured. It has come in the evidence that eh deceased was a mason and an occupant. 10. Even Clause 60 of the IMT refers to a person, who has been permitted to use the vehicle for driving in case of demonstration. Naturally in case of demonstration, the vehicle is given to the intending buyer, who uses the vehicle for the trial purpose, such person’s risk is covered. It is in these circumstances. Clauses 59 and 60 have to be understood when it is a trade policy, particularly reference to the purpose, the scope of the policy cannot be enlarged only on the interpretation of domestic or pleasure. Scope of the clauses 59 and 60 of the IMT does not include the risk of the occupant of the car. 11. Tribunal considering these clause and considering the premium paid by the insured has rightly found that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the compensation. Even on reconsideration of the entire evidence. I do not find there is any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, I find no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.