JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.89 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, (for short “the tribunal”), the appellant/3rd respondent - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, has preferred this appeal questioning the award and the liability fastened on it. 2. For convenience's sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (short “MV Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of Peruboina Subrahmanyam, who is the son of claimants 1 and 2 and the brother of claimant No.3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.12.2009. The said Peruboina Subramanyam would hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased". 4. The case of the claimants is that in the afternoon of 06.12.2009, at the instructions of his employer, who is the owner of Truck Auto bearing No. AP-16-TA-1253 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) for loading eggs from poultry farms, the deceased sat over the empty egg trays in the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle's driver drove the same rash and negligently applied the sudden brake, due to which the deceased fell on the road. He was run over by the rear wheels of the said offending vehicle and died. 5. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, have remained ex parte. 6. The third respondent filed its counter, contending that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle’s driver. There is no proof of income, and since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company has no liability, and further compensation claimed is excessive. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined, andExs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 got examined, and Exs.B.1 to B.5, besides Ex.X.1, were marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 got examined, and Exs.B.1 to B.5, besides Ex.X.1, were marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. It fixed the compensation amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/3rd respondent contends that as per the Ex.B.3-RC Book and Ex.X.1-B register extract, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is only one, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger; the Tribunal erred to appreciate that the offending vehicle’s owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that in the absence of any premium, fastening the liability on the insurance company is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court rendered in Lody Shankar’s case; and erred in directing the appellant to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the offending vehicle’s driver and owner. 11. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4/claimants 1 to 3 has supported the findings of the Tribunal. 12. Now the point for determination is: Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant/respondent No.3? POINT: 13. There is no dispute regarding the case of the claimants that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, which is evident by Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.2-Certified copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A.3-Charge sheet, Ex.A.4-Postmortem Report and Ex.A.5-M.V.Inspector’s Report. The offending vehicle is covered under Ex.B.2-Insurance policy and is also not in dispute. 14. As seen from the grounds of appeal and contentions raised in the course of the hearing, it can be seen that the appellant has not disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants have also not disputed the quantum of compensation by filing appeals or cross-objections. 15. The appellant contends that as per Ex.B.3-RC Book and Ex.X.1- B register extract, the seating capacity of the auto trolley is only one person and the deceased was travelling on the top of the goods. The claimants have also not disputed the quantum of compensation by filing appeals or cross-objections. 15. The appellant contends that as per Ex.B.3-RC Book and Ex.X.1- B register extract, the seating capacity of the auto trolley is only one person and the deceased was travelling on the top of the goods. The Tribunal's findings that the deceased was engaged as a hamali worker for loading and unloading purposes, his risk is covered under the policy. Whereas, the stand of the appellant/third respondent is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per the Ex.B2-policy, the company has received the premium for the risk of the only person, i.e., driver only. In view of the rival contentions raised, this Court has gone through the Ex.B1 policy. As per Ex.B1 Insurance policy, an amount of Rs.25/- was collected to cover the risk of W.C. to Employee-I, which negatives the contention of the insurance company that no premium was collected except for the driver. 16. The Tribunal has accepted the said finding. The evidence of PW.2 shows that the deceased was proceeding in the offending vehicle along with egg trays; the driver drove it rashly and negligently and applied the sudden brake; due to sudden impact, the deceased fell from the auto. No material is placed by the appellant/third respondent to disprove the case of claimants that the deceased was proceeding in an auto at the time of the accident as a worker for loading and unloading purposes. In view of the same, the contention raised by the appellant/third respondent that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized gratuitous passenger cannot be accepted. 17. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Baljit Kaur and Others, 2004(2) JLJ 127 , considering the question of whether the insurance policy in respect of goods vehicle is required to cover the gratuitous passenger in view of the amendment to Section 147 of the Act, the Apex Court, after considering all the previous decisions, concluded that the Insurance Company was not liable as the risk of an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle or gratuitous passengers is not covered under the policy. There is a breach of the condition of the policy in carrying a passenger in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle's owner was held liable to satisfy the decree. There is a breach of the condition of the policy in carrying a passenger in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle's owner was held liable to satisfy the decree. However, in paragraph 21, the Court thought that the interests of justice would be sub-served if the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 18. In Shivaraj vs Rajendra, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 853, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the following facts of the case, held that “…..the High Court, however, found in favour of respondent No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger who was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the tractor's owner. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. …..At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case, the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with the liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swarna Singh & Others 2004 3 SCC 297 1, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 5 SCC 656 , Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2018 9 Scale 310 including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. 2017 4 SCC 796 . In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2. Therefore, the appellant may succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with the liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner". 19. In Shamanna and another Vs. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2. Therefore, the appellant may succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with the liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner". 19. In Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal No.8144 of 2008, the Apex Court held that: “to deny the benefit of pay and recover, what seems to have substantially weighed with the High Court is the reference to larger Bench made by the two-Judge Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and another (2009) 8 SCC 785 ) which doubted the correctness of the decisions in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directing insurance companies to pay the compensation amount even though the insurance company has no liability to pay. In the Parvathneni case, the Supreme Court pointed out that Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not cover such types of cases and that if the insurance company has no liability to pay at all, then it cannot be compelled by order of the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pay the compensation amount and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The above reference in the Parvathneni case was disposed of on 17.09.2013 by the three-Judges Bench keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. Since the reference to the larger Bench in the Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently, the decision in the Swaran Singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut, and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside, and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored". 20. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tam Tam Venkata Reddy and others, 2004 (2) ALD 775 , it observed that, “…..Admittedly all the claimants who were travelling in the vehicle were injured because of the accident, and only a trump card for the Insurance Company order to get absolved from the liability is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. This ground, in fact, is not available for the Insurance Company to deny compensation to the injured, who are third parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 (3) A.L.D. 24 (S.C.): 2001 ACJ 843 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 (3) A.L.D. 20 (S.C.) : (2003) 3 SCC 338 and N.I v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) : 2004 (1) Scale 124 ”. “……If all the above three judgments are read together, the intention of the Apex Court though under different contexts is crystal clear i.e, even if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, either by way of insured vehicle being driven by a driver not possessing valid licence or the insured vehicle carrying gratuitous passengers, or violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in any other manner, the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the third party - injured, does not cease. At best, the insurer after paying the compensation to the injured can later recover the same from the insured, by proving the alleged breach of policy conditions since the accident occurred prior to 3.12.2002 i.e, the date of the judgment in Asha Rani's case”. 21. Coming to the instant case, the offending vehicle’s owner paid an additional premium to cover the liability of W.C. to the employee I. The insurance company is bound by the terms of the contract. 22. 21. Coming to the instant case, the offending vehicle’s owner paid an additional premium to cover the liability of W.C. to the employee I. The insurance company is bound by the terms of the contract. 22. On the other hand, the policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and also called an Act policy. The insurer's liability under this policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of the claim made by the third parties and the owner of the goods or his authorized representative who travels in the goods vehicle along with the goods. 23. According to my opinion, even a worker who travels along with egg trays may be considered as his authorized representative of the owner of the goods travelling in the offending vehicle as a third party. On that ground, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, as a statutory liability, to the third party who was travelling as a worker in the offending vehicle along with the goods being his authorized representative of owner carried in the vehicle. So, on that ground, the insurance company cannot deny the liability of workers travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 24. Since the evidence on record shows that the deceased was proceeding in the offending vehicle, though it has not contributed to the accident, this Court views that a direction can be given to the insurance company to pay and recover the compensation from the offending vehicle’s owner, as there is no seating provided to worker/employee as per Ex.X1-‘B’ Register Extract. 25. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and High Court, this Court finds that the contentions raised by the third respondent/Insurance company that it cannot be fastened with the liability by paying the amount to the appellant and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, is not sustainable. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly directed the third respondent/insurance company to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, I don’t find any substance in the appeal; the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 26. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 27. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.