Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, dated 15.03.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 36-S/2 of 2005, titled Shri Hari Chand Bramta versus Shri Rajeev Chauhan & others, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of ` 2,69,676/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited, with right of recovery from the driver and the insured-owner, hereinafter referred to as “impugned award”. 2. The owner-insured has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 343 of 2008, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling him with liability. 3. By the medium of FAO No. 412 of 2008, the insurer-Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in asking it to satisfy the impugned award. 4. The claimant has not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to him. 5. Thus, the only question for determination in these appeals is- whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer-Insurance Company to satisfy the impugned award, at the first instance, with right of recovery. Brief facts: 6. Claimant Shri Hari Chand Bramta, who is practicing as an Advocate, has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of `8,00,000/-, as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition. It is pleaded in the claim petition that on 27.04.2004, he was traveling in vehicle-Truck bearing registration No. HP-07-5357; was driven by the driver, namely, Sant Ram, rashly and negligently; was carrying sand for construction of his house; met with an accident, at about 1.30 a.m., at Dharkoti on Kuddu-Chhajpur Road, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, sustained injuries; shifted to Civil Hospital Rohroo; referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and remained admitted there from 27.04.2004 to 11.06.2004. 7 The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 8. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues on 17.05.2006: 1. 7 The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 8. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues on 17.05.2006: 1. Whether the petitioner while traveling in a truck No. HP-07-5357 on 27.4.2004 suffered injuries when truck met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, as alleged? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? .….OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? …OPR 4. Whether the driver respondent No. 2 at the time of accident was not holding effective and valid driving licence, as alleged? …OPR 5. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of statutory documents, as alleged? …OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is collusive between respondents No. 1 & 2. …OPR 1 & 2. 7. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in a goods carrier, as alleged? ….OPR-3 8. Relief.” 9. The claimant examined ASI Prem Singh (PW-2), Dr. Kamaljit Singh (PW-3), Shri Amar Singh (PW-4) and Shri Rajinder (PW-5) and Shri Sant Ram (PW-6). Claimant Shri Hari Chand Bramta also appeared in the witness box as PW-1. He placed on record copy of F.I.R. (Ext. PW-1/A), bills of medicines (Ext. PW-1/1 to PW-1/136), prescription slips, (Ext. PW-1/B to PW-1/D), photocopies of treatment (Ext. PW-3/1 to PW-3/39), discharge slip, (Mark-A), and prescription slips (Mark-B to M). The owner also appeared in the witness box as RW-1/1. The insurer has examined Shri S.S. Jasrota as RW-3/1, in support of its defence. Respondents also placed on record copy of R.C. (Ext. RW1/A), insurance cover note (Ext. RW-1/B), copy of driving licence (Ext. RW-1/C), letters of Insurance Company (Ext. PW-1/D to Ext. PW-2/E), receipt of sand, (Ext. RX), letter dated 13th July, 2004 (Ext. RY) and copy of Insurance Policy (Ext. RW-3/1-A). Issue No. 1. 10. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence, held that driver, namely, Sant Ram, has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on the fateful day; the claimant who was traveling in the said truck, sustained injuries. The said issue is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 3 & 4 11. Onus to prove these issues was upon the owner-insured, driver and the insured, which they failed to do so. The said issue is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 3 & 4 11. Onus to prove these issues was upon the owner-insured, driver and the insured, which they failed to do so. The findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are also not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. Issues No. 2, 5, to 7. 12. Now coming to these issues, which are interlinked, the claimant in the claim petition has specifically pleaded that he is practicing as an Advocate; was traveling in the offending vehicle in which sand was being carried for construction of his house. In para-10, he has specifically pleaded that he had boarded the offending vehicle for his native place Sansog at Kuddu, Tehsil and District Shimla. The claimant has not pleaded in the claim petition that he had hired the said vehicle for carrying sand. The insurer-Insurance Company has specifically pleaded in its reply that the claimant was travelling in the offending truck as a gratuitous passenger and the risk was not covered. The insured-owner has not pleaded in his reply that the vehicle was hired by the claimant and met with the accident. 13. In terms of the Insurance Policy on the file, Ext. RW-3/1-A, the risk of passenger is not covered. 14. The definition of word “passenger” is given in Black’s Law Dictionary as under:- “In general, a person who gives compensation to another for transportation. Shapiro v. Bookspan, 155 Cal.App. 2d, 353, 318, P.2d 123, 126. The word passenger has however various meanings, depending upon the circumstances under which and the context in which the word is used; sometimes it is construed in a restricted legal sense as referring to one who is being carried by another for hire; on other occasions, the word is interpreted as meaning any occupant of a vehicle other than the person operating it. American Mercury Ins. Co. v. Bifulco, 74 N.J. Super, 191, 181 A.2d, 20, 22. The essential elements of “passenger” as opposed to “guest” under guest statute are that driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship; it may be easier to find compensation where the trip has commercial or business flavor. The essential elements of “passenger” as opposed to “guest” under guest statute are that driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship; it may be easier to find compensation where the trip has commercial or business flavor. Friedhoff v. Engberg, 82 S.D. 522, 149 N.W. 2d 759, 761, 762, 763. A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of the performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of conveyance.” 15. In the New Oxford Dictionary, the word “passenger” is defined as under: “A traveller on a public or private conveyance other than the driver, pilot or crew. A member of a team or group who does farless effective work than the other members.” 16. In Webster’s Enclyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, the definition of ward “passenger” is given as under: “1.a person who is traveling in an automobile, bus, train, airplane, or other conveyance, esp. one who is not the driver, pilot, or the like. 2. a wayfarer, traveler.” 17. The Kerala High Court in a case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd., versus Annakutty and others, reported in AIR 1993 Kerala 299, has defined the “word” passenger. It is apt to reproduce paras-13 & 14 of the judgment (supra) herein:- “13. We are of the view that the import of the word ‘passenger’, occurring in S. 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been unduly qualified or cut down and the wider meaning applicable to the said word in common parlance or found in the dictionaries has not been given effect to in the said decision. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1990 Edition at page 869, the meaning of the word ‘passenger’ is stated thus: “a traveller in or on a public or private conveyance other than the driver, pilot, crew etc.” For the word ‘traveller’, the meaning is given thus, at page 1300: “A person who travels or is traveling” The meaning of the word ‘travel’ is given thus at page 1300: “Go from one place to another, make a journey, esp. of some length or abroad.” It is a matter of common knowledge that all passenger vehicles carry persons even beyond the seating or standing capacity allowed by the Rules for the particular vehicle. Such persons do travel in the bus; they perform journey from place to place. Can this common import and understanding of the word be ignored, by giving an unduly restricted meaning to the word ‘passenger’ as a person who is provided with seating accommodation or whose travel is permitted by standing capacity, permitted for the vehicles under the Rules? In our considered view, the import of the word ‘passenger’ cannot be restricted by reference to the Motor Vehicles Rules, by which the seating accommodation is provided or standing in the vehicle is specifically permitted. The dictionary meaning is of wide import and we can look into the dictionary meaning of the term, in the absence of any definition in the Act for understanding the meaning to be given to a particular word Commissioner of Income-tax v. Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, AIR 1957 SC 768 at 772 para 10. It is a salutary principle of statutory construction that in construting the words in a section, the first task is to give the words therein their plain and ordinary meaning and then to see whether the context or some principle of construction requires that some qualified meaning should be placed on those words. Gardiner v. Admiralty Commissioner, 1964 (2) All ER 93 at 97 (HL). The import of words cannot be cut down by arbitrary addition or retrenchment in language. With great respect to the learned Judge, who rendered the decision in Subramani’s case (1990 (1) ACJ 37) and National Insurance Co.’s case 1990(2) ACJ 821, we are unable to hold that the word ‘passenger’ occurring in S. 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, should be limited to the case of a person who travels in the vehicle either by remaining seated in the seating accommodation provided or by standing in vehicles where travel by standing is specially permitted. We are of the view that any person who performs the journey in the bus will be passenger. He will continue to be a passenger even at the time of alighting from the bus, if his physical contact with the bus still remains. We are of the view that any person who performs the journey in the bus will be passenger. He will continue to be a passenger even at the time of alighting from the bus, if his physical contact with the bus still remains. We are of the view that the ordinary connotation of the word ‘passenger’ cannot be restricted or limited to only those persons who travel in the vehicle either by remaining seated in the seating accommodation provided or by standing in vehicles where travel by standing is specially permitted. We concur with the view stated in Venkataswami Motor Service’s case 1989 (1) ACJ 371 ; (1989 All LJ 868) para 20. 14. In Pandit Ram Saroop’s case 1988 ACJ 500 , as a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court was faced with a different situation. There, a person boarded the bus at ‘G’ stop and the destination point was ‘O’. The bus did not stop at the point ‘O’. If it had stopped there, the person could have got down. What happened was, the bus went ahead without stopping at the point ‘O” preventing the person from getting down at the point of destination. The bus went much ahead and when the person was trying to get down, the bus started and its rear wheels ran over him and killed him. The learned single Judge held that the character of the deceased as a passenger came to an end at the bus stop ‘O’, for which destination he had obtained the ticket. We are of the view that though this decision held that the deceased was not a passenger at the time of the accident, by a different reasoning, it cannot be said that the deceased was not performing a journey at the time when he was trying to get down from the bus and met with the accident. In the light of our reasoning that the word ‘passenger’ should be given the wide meaning so long as the person is performing the journey, with great respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to accept the decision in Pandit Ram Saroop’s case 1988 ACJ 500 as laying down the correct law.” 18. In the light of our reasoning that the word ‘passenger’ should be given the wide meaning so long as the person is performing the journey, with great respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to accept the decision in Pandit Ram Saroop’s case 1988 ACJ 500 as laying down the correct law.” 18. The Apex Court in a case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Devireddy Konda Reddy & others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1009 has held that if the passenger is traveling in the goods vehicle and the said vehicle meets with an accident, the insurer is not liable. It is apt to reproduce para-11 of the judgment (supra), herein: “11. 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.” 19. The same principle was laid down by the Apex Court in a case titled as M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Baljit Kaur and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1340 . It is apt to reproduce paras 7 & 20 of the aforesaid judgment, herein:- “7. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (supra), it was held that the previous decision in Satpal Singh case, was incorrectly rendered, and that the words "any person" as used in S. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not include passengers in the goods vehicle, but would rather be confined to the legislative intent to provide for third party risk. The question in the subsequent judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (supra), involved, as in the present case, the liability of the Insurance Company in the event of death caused to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. The Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in placing reliance upon Satpal Singh case (supra), in view of its reversal by Asha Rani (supra), and that, accordingly, the insurer would not be liable to pay compensation to the family of the victim who was travelling in a goods vehicle. 8. …………………………….. 9. …………………………….. 10. …………………………….. 11. …………………………….. 12. …………………………….. 13. …………………………….. 14. …………………………….. 15. …………………………….. 16. …………………………….. 17. …………………………….. 18. …………………………….. 19. …………………………….. 20. 8. …………………………….. 9. …………………………….. 10. …………………………….. 11. …………………………….. 12. …………………………….. 13. …………………………….. 14. …………………………….. 15. …………………………….. 16. …………………………….. 17. …………………………….. 18. …………………………….. 19. …………………………….. 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in S. 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized 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 any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.” 20. The Apex Court in a case titled as Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul and another reported in 2013 AIR SCW 609 in para 16 has held as under:- “In the present case, Section 147 as originally existed in 1988 Act is applicable and, accordingly, the judgment of this Court in Asha Rani (supra) is fully attracted. The High Court was clearly in error in reviewing its judgment and order delivered on 09.11.2010 in review petition filed by the claimant by applying Section 147(1)(b)(i). The High Court committed grave error in holding that Section 147(1)(b)(i) takes within its fold any liability which may be incurred by the insurer in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person. The High Court also erred in holding that the claimant was travelling in the vehicle in the course of his employment since he was a spare driver in the vehicle although he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time but he was directed to go to the worksite by his employer. The High Court erroneously assumed that the claimant died in the course of employment and overlooked the fact that the claimant was not in any manner engaged on the vehicle that met with an accident but he was employed as a driver in another vehicle owned by M/s. P.L. Construction Company. The insured (owner of the vehicle) got insurance cover in respect of the subject goods vehicle for driver and cleaner only and not for any other employee. The insured (owner of the vehicle) got insurance cover in respect of the subject goods vehicle for driver and cleaner only and not for any other employee. There is no insurance cover for the spare driver in the policy. As a matter of law, the claimant did not cease to be a gratuitous passenger though he claimed that he was a spare driver. The insured had paid premium for one driver and one cleaner and, therefore, second driver or for that purpose 'spare driver' was not covered under the policy.” 21. The Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaroopa & others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3227 has also laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 4 of the judgment (supra) herein: “Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased who died in an accident on 28th January, 1996 leading to the filing of a claim petition on th July, 1996 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By order dated 20th August, 1998, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) granted compensation both against the appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle, Respondent No. 7 herein. The appeal filed in the High Court by the appellant-Insurance Company disputing its liability to pay to the legal representatives of the deceased was dismissed on 27th August, 2002, in view of the law then prevailing as a result of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh ( 2000 (1) SCC 237 ). The said decision has now been overruled by this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani & Ors ( 2003 (2) SCC 223 ) wherein it has been held that an Insurance Company will not be liable to pay compensation in respect of a gratuitous passenger being carried in a goods vehicle if the vehicle meets with an accident. In this view, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal. The claim petition against the appellant shall stand dismissed. We, however, clarify that the amount of compensation, if any, that may have been paid to Respondent Nos. In this view, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal. The claim petition against the appellant shall stand dismissed. We, however, clarify that the amount of compensation, if any, that may have been paid to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 shall be recoverable by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle, Respondent No. 7, herein and not from the legal representatives of the deceased.” 22. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Vedwati & others reported in 2007, AIR SCW 1505, the Apex Court in paras-14 & 15 has held as under: “14. 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. 15. Our view gets support from a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Ors. ( 2002 (8) Supreme 594 ] in which it has been held that Satpal Singh's case (supra) was not correctly decided. That being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in holding that the insurer had the liability to satisfy the award.” 23. Having glance of the aforesaid decisions, the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as gratuitous passenger. 24. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 25. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are also upheld and need no inference. 26. The insurer has to satisfy the impugned award, at the first instance, for the reason that the claimant is the third party and the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned award, with right of recovery. 27. Viewed thus, both the appeals merit to be dismissed, are dismissed as such. The impugned award is upheld. 28. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 29. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on the record.