JUDGMENT : C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. 1. The 3rd respondent in OP (MV) 165/2012 is the appellant herein. The respondents are petitioners 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 in the OP are the respondents. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to, as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioners filed the above OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Lineesh T.S. in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.1.2008. According to the petitioners on 16.1.2008 at about 01.00 hrs. the deceased was travelling in jeep bearing registration No. KED-2260 driven by the 1st respondent from Manjeri to Thamarassery and when the jeep reached at the place of occurrence, the 1st respondent stopped the jeep at the request of Lineesh for passing urine. Thereafter when Lineesh tried to enter into the jeep and he stepped into the foot-board, the 1st respondent took the vehicle forward, in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, Lineesh fell down from the jeep, sustained grievous head injuries and while under treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the jeep and 3rd respondent is its insurer. The petitioners who are the mother, wife and brother of the deceased claimed a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. The 3rd respondent alone contested the case by filing a written statement contending that policy was issued to a private vehicle KED-2260 as an act-only-policy. The deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the jeep at the time of the accident. According to them, the passengers are not covered under the policy, and as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent and to pay compensation to the petitioners. 4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 to A5 and B1. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not a passenger and hence, awarded a compensation of Rs.12,43,000/- and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the same. Aggrieved by the above award, the 3rd respondent preferred this appeal. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not a passenger and hence, awarded a compensation of Rs.12,43,000/- and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the same. Aggrieved by the above award, the 3rd respondent preferred this appeal. Now the only point that arise for consideration is the following: Whether a person who attempted to enter into a private vehicle, but fails in his attempt, is a gratuitous passenger, so as to disentitle him from claiming compensation under S.166 of the M.V. Act? 5. Heard Sri. S. Arun Raj, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and also Sri. P. Samsudin, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, in detail. 6. The Point: In this case admittedly the deceased was travelling in the jeep bearing No. KED-2260 driven by the 1st respondent, from Manjeri to Thamarassery. When the jeep reached the place of occurrence, at the request of deceased Lineesh, the 1st respondent stopped to enable the deceased to pass urine. The accident occurred when the deceased after passing urine, attempted to board the vehicle. Now the question to be considered is whether a person, who attempted to board a private vehicle and failed in his attempt, can be denied compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that he is a gratuitous passenger. 7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased was travelling in the very same jeep from Manjeri and he was proceeding to Thamarassery and the accident occurred in the meantime, while he was attempting to board the jeep again, after passing urine, he is to be treated as a passenger in the said vehicle, till the end of his journey. Therefore, according to him, he was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the insurer has no liability to pay compensation on account of his death. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would argue that the question to be considered is not whether the deceased was a passenger in the jeep before the accident. On the other hand, according to him, the question to be considered is whether at the time of the accident, he was a passenger in the said vehicle. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would argue that the question to be considered is not whether the deceased was a passenger in the jeep before the accident. On the other hand, according to him, the question to be considered is whether at the time of the accident, he was a passenger in the said vehicle. It was argued that at the time of accident, the deceased was only attempting to board the jeep by placing his foot on the foot-board, that at that time, the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner moved the vehicle, resulting in causing injury to him and hence, he had not acquired the status of a passenger in the said jeep. Therefore, it was argued that, the contention of the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the jeep is not legally sustainable. 8. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions in Noorjahan (Tmt). v. Sultan Rajia Tmt and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 6 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Rout and Ors. MANU/OR/1242/1998, Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Roebuck, 1951 OK 348. In the decision in Noorjahan (supra), relying upon Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the term ‘passenger’ includes persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of occurrence. In paragraph 8 therein the Apex Court held as follows: “It is clear that the legislature intended that such persons, viz., passengers who are in the process of alighting from a public service vehicle, should be covered by the policy of insurance, which requirement is mandatory under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, once such persons, viz. those who are entering or alighting from the vehicle are treated as passengers, the limit of liability of the insurance company has to be located in clause (ii) of Section 95(2)(b) of the Act. The limit at the relevant time was Rs.10,000/-.” 9. In the decision in Ashalata Rout (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person boarding or alighting from the vehicle also comes within the definition ‘passenger’ in the light of Section 95 (1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The limit at the relevant time was Rs.10,000/-.” 9. In the decision in Ashalata Rout (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person boarding or alighting from the vehicle also comes within the definition ‘passenger’ in the light of Section 95 (1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In paragraph 9, the Apex Court held that: “Section 95(1)(b) makes it clear that a policy of insurance shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury to persons boarding or alighting from a motor vehicle but clause (ii) of the proviso thereto engrafts an exception and says that where the vehicle is one in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, it shall be necessary to cover liability in relation to persons carried in or upon such vehicle which would include cases of each or bodily injury caused while entering or mounting or alighting from such vehicle. The words ‘alighting from the vehicle’ are plain and simple and clearly mean ‘while getting down from the vehicle’. The legislature intended that such persons, viz. passengers which are in the process of alighting from a public service vehicle, should be covered by the policy of insurance, which requirement is mandatory under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, once such persons, viz., those who are entering or alighting from the vehicle are treated as passengers, the limit of liability of the insurance company has to be located in Clause (ii) of Section 95(2)(b) of the Old Act. The limit at the relevant time was Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, if a person is still in the process of boarding or alighting from the vehicle, such person would be entitled to the coverage, no doubt within the limit of liability fixed under the statute at the relevant point of time. This was a beneficial provision engrafted by way of an exception to provide an insurance cover to passengers. However, in the new Act, proviso (ii) to Section 95(1)(b) of the old Act on which the present interpretation rests has been omitted. This aspect was highlighted by the Apex Court in Noorjahan (Tmt) v. Sultan Rajia TMT alias Thaju and Ors. MANU/SC/1022/1997.” 10. In Oklahoma Ry. Co. (supra), the plaintiff was injured when she boarded or attempted to board defendant’s bus at a regular bus stop near Oklahoma city. This aspect was highlighted by the Apex Court in Noorjahan (Tmt) v. Sultan Rajia TMT alias Thaju and Ors. MANU/SC/1022/1997.” 10. In Oklahoma Ry. Co. (supra), the plaintiff was injured when she boarded or attempted to board defendant’s bus at a regular bus stop near Oklahoma city. In her attempt to board the bus, she place done foot and part of one limb inside the door before the door closed and the bus started. While deciding the question whether the plaintiff progressed far enough in boarding the bus or in attempting to board the bus to attain the status of a passenger, the Court held in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 thus: “10. Under the latter statement the plaintiff was a passenger. A rule applicable thereto is stated in paragraph one of the syllabus in Clark v. Durham Traction Co. 138 N.C. 77 : 50 S.E. 518: “Plaintiff alighted from a street car, on which he had paid his fare, and received a transfer to a connecting line. As he attempted to board the connecting car at the usual place for the transfer of passengers, he was thrown to the street and injured by the sudden start of the car when he had one foot on the step and the other on the ground. Held, that plaintiff was a passenger at the time he was injured.” 11. In Burger v. Omaha & C.B. St. RY. Co. 139 Iowa 645 : 117 N.W. 35, a person was held to have attained the status of a passenger when he was attempting to board a streetcar, but the car started before he could completely get on and he maintained his hold on the handrail and ran along side for some distance in an effort to board the streetcar when finally his hold was broken or relinquished and he fell and was injured. 12. In Smith v. St. Paul City R. Co. 32 Minn. 1 : 118 N.W. 827, it was held a person was to be regarded as a passenger when he hailed the streetcar and the car had stopped and “he was in the act of carefully and prudently attempting to step upon the platform.” 11. In the above decisions, the question involved was whether a person while boarding or alighting from a passenger vehicle, when falls down and sustains injury, attains the status of a passenger. In the above decisions, the question involved was whether a person while boarding or alighting from a passenger vehicle, when falls down and sustains injury, attains the status of a passenger. In the instant case, the question to be answered is different, as the vehicle involved is not a passenger vehicle, but a private vehicle. The answer to the above question determines whether such a person is to be awarded compensation for the injuries sustained or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, he is to be denied compensation and if it is in the negative, the insurer will be liable to pay compensation to him. In the instant case the victim died in the accident and therefore, the answer to this question determines whether his widowed mother and siblings, who are his dependents will get any solace, on account of his accidental death, at the age of 28. 12. A person sustaining injury while attempting to board or alight from a private vehicle cannot be compared to that in a public passenger vehicle. The provision for awarding compensation to victims of road traffic accident being a beneficial legislation, the same is to be interpreted in favour of the victims of such accidents. In the decision in Jayasree N. and Others v. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2021 SC 5218 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while holding that MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families, held in paragraph 16 that: “In our view, the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent......” 13. As noticed above, MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent......” 13. In the decision in Mamta and Others v. Happy and Others, MANU/PH/2851/2024, while holding that every endeavour has to be made as to how best the intention of the legislation can be achieved so as to safe-guard the interest of the victims of the accident, rather than defeating the same, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that: “There cannot be any dispute that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, endeavour has to be made as to how best the intention of the legislation can be achieved so as to safe-guard the interest of the victims of the accident, rather than defeating the same. The statute has to be construed according to the intent of the makers and it is the duty of the Courts to interpret the statute in such a manner that the true intention of legislature is achieved.” 14. The question whether a person who attempted to board a goods vehicle, and slipped from the vehicle and died due to the injuries received due to the negligence of the driver came up before the Andhra Pradesh High court, in the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Polaki Sarojini Devi and Ors. MANU/AP/1577/2003. In the above decision, when the deceased was boarding the tipper by placing his foot on the foot-board, the driver drove the lorry, without observing him, due to which he slipped from the vehicle and died due to the injuries received by him. In the above factual scenario, the Andhra Pradesh High court held that unless and until he enters the vehicle, he shall not secure the status of a passenger, and as such, he was treated as a third party to the vehicle. I am in respectful agreement with the above view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the above referred decision. Therefore, I hold that a person attempting to board a private vehicle and fails in his attempt and falls down and sustains injury due to the negligence of the driver is not a passenger in the said vehicle, but a third party. 15. Therefore, I hold that a person attempting to board a private vehicle and fails in his attempt and falls down and sustains injury due to the negligence of the driver is not a passenger in the said vehicle, but a third party. 15. The facts in the present case is also almost identical. When Lineesh in his attempt to enter into the jeep stepped into the foot-board, the 1st respondent took the vehicle forward, in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, Lineesh fell down from the jeep, sustained grievous head injuries and while under treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. In the above circumstances, in the light of the above dictum it is to be held that, the deceased had not acquired the status of a passenger in the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident. In other words, he was a third party to the said vehicle. Therefore, the appellant insurer cannot be exonerated from indemnifying the liability on account of the use of the insured vehicle, due from respondents 1 and 2. Point answered accordingly. 16. In view of the above finding that a person attempting to board a private vehicle and fails in his attempt, is not a passenger but a third party, this appeal challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of two months, if not already made. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants 1 to 3 equally.