JUDGMENT : JOHNSON JOHN, J. The 2nd respondent insurance company in O.P. (MV) No. 1267 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal filed this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal directing the 2nd respondent insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claim petitioner and thereafter, to recover the same from the 1st respondent owner of the vehicle. 2. According to the claim petitioner/injured, he is a coolie worker and at the time of the accident, he was accompanying the goods in the pick up autorickshaw and because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent, it overturned and thereby the claim petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the claim petitioner and Exhibit B1, copy of the policy of insurance, was marked from the side of the 2nd respondent. 4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner with liberty to recover the amount from the 1st respondent owner of the vehicle. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that the claim petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and he is not covered by the act only policy and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant insurance company. It is argued that the Tribunal, even after arriving at a finding that the claim petitioner was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, directed the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claim petitioner with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and the said direction is against the principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others [2003 KHC 22] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others [2006 KHC 605] 7. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others [2006 KHC 605] 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/ claim petitioner argued that the claim petitioner was the representative of the owner of the goods transported in the vehicle and that after the 1994 amendment, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the owner of the goods or his representative travelling in a goods vehicle. But, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company invited my attention to the averments in the claim petition and pointed out that the claim petitioner has no case that he was the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods transported in the vehicle. In column No. 10 of the claim petition, it is only stated that the applicant was accompanying the goods in the pick up autorickshaw and there is no averment that he is the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods transported. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner argued that from Exhibit A1 First Information Statement, it can be seen that the injured was travelling in the vehicle for the purpose of unloading the goods. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company invited my attention to paragraph 14 of the written statement, wherein it is specifically contended that the applicant was an unauthorised passenger and that he was not accompanying any goods and he was not the representative of the owner of the goods. Therefore, it can be seen that even in the absence of any specific averment in the claim petition that the claim petitioner was the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods, the respondent insurance company has specifically contended in the written statement that the claim petitioner was an unauthorized passenger and he was not the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. 9. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claim petitioner was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun & others vs Rajesh Kr. Singh & others [ 2017 ACJ 1031 ], the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claim petitioner and reimburse the same from the owner of the vehicle. Singh & others [ 2017 ACJ 1031 ], the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claim petitioner and reimburse the same from the owner of the vehicle. There is no specific averment in the claim petition that the claim petitioner was the owner of the goods or representative of the owner of the goods transported in the vehicle and the claim petitioner has also not adduced any evidence to show that he was the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that he was a gratuitous passenger and in that circumstance, the contention that the claim petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the 1994 amendment is not sustainable. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention paragraphs 27 to 29 in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Asha Rani (supra), wherein it was held as follows: 27. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis -a-vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 28. Furthermore, sub clause (i) of Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of S.147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 29. An owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. 29. An owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Court's decision in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Others (JT 1999 (9) SC 416) is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy where for even no premium is required to be paid.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Exhibit B1 is only a statutory policy and no additional premium was collected to cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger. Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 is extracted below for convenient reference: 147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which – (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer, and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) – (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Provided that a policy shall not be required – (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier." 12. It is also worthwhile to consider sub-Section 1 of Section 149 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows: "149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. It is also worthwhile to consider sub-Section 1 of Section 149 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows: "149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. - (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under subsection (3) of S.147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of subsection (1) of S.147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of S.163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.” 13. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul and another [ 2021 2 KHC 449 ] to point out that the direction for pay and recovery ordered by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul and another [2013 KHC 4013] and Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kr. Singh and others [2017 KHC 6151] are in exercise of the plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said cases and therefore, the said decisions are not applicable to this case. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner cited the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner cited the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rijawana Jamshed Mulla and others [ 2021 ACJ 197 ], wherein this Court, after finding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and thereafter, to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun & Ors vs Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors [ 2017 ACJ 1031 ]. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni [ 2009 8 SCC 785 ] shows that the Honourable Supreme Court issued the direction to pay the compensation amount and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court also referred the matter to a larger Bench to decide whether such a direction can be given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The direction for pay and recovery passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be followed as a precedent to direct the insurance company to make payment when the insurance company has no liability to pay and therefore, in view of the above legal position, I find that the direction to the appellant in the impugned award to pay compensation to the claim petitioner and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award to the extent it directs the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the claim petitioner is set aside.