S.K. Chattopadhayaya, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. which is directed against the order dated 6.9.1991 passed by the IInd Addl. District Judge-cum-Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa, in Misc. Compensation Case No. 37 of 1984 by reason of which the Tribunal directed the assurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 15.000/- as interim compensation to the respondent No. 1, Turki Hi, widow of late Kundia Purty.
2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal stating, inter alia, that her husband, Kundia Purty, boarded truck No. BRS 2851 at 4 p.m. on 29.5.1984 for returning home at Chaibasa from Lagra Bajar. On the way, the truck turned upside down due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver as a result of which the husband of respondent No. 1 died and others sustained injury. Prayer was made before the Tribunal for payment of ad interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the ill-fated truck was insured with the appellant company, the claimant made the company a party respondent along with the owner of the truck, Kishori Ram.
3. By the impugned order the Tribunal, on the basis of the facts and submissions made on behalf of the claimant, directed the appellant company to pay ad interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
4. Mr. Eqbal, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Claims Tribunal, without appreciating the provisions of law laid down under Section 92-A of the Act, passed the said order and as such it is vitiated in law. Secondly, it is contended that the truck was a goods carrying vehicle and, as such, the driver was not authorised to carry any passenger. If a goods carrying vehicle carries a passenger, the same will be unlawful and under such circumstance, any damage either to life or to property of the unauthorised passenger carried by the truck is not covered under the policy. In support of his second submission Mr. Eqbal has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Immam Aminasab Nadaf 1990 ACJ 757 (Karnataka), as well as a Division Bench decision of this court reported in 1987 BLT 274.
5. Mrs. Jay a Roy, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, however, submits that as the policy was not filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not in a position to consider the risk involved in the policy.
6. Section 92-A (1) of the Act contemplates that where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
7. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is amply clear that on the death or permanent disablement of a person due to an accident arising out of a vehicle, the owner or owners of such vehicle or vehicles will be liable. This provision does not fasten the insurance company with any liability to give ad interim compensation. Secondly, ill-fated truck was admittedly a goods carrying vehicle and, as such, the driver took passenger on it illegally and without any authority. The deceased boarded the truck for returning to his home but admittedly he was an unauthorised occupant.
8. In the case of C. Narayanan v. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan 1974 ACJ 479 (Madras), the Madras High Court has held that a passenger carried by a lorry will not be covered by the insurance policy unless he is proved to be a passenger travelling by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment.
9. In the instant case no such evidence has been adduced before the court below that the deceased was travelling by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. The argument of Mrs. Jaya Roy that the policy was not before the Tribunal and, as such, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to consider the nature of risk involved, in my opinion, is not sustainable. Whatever may be the policy, in view of the clear mandate of the legislature as laid down under Section 92-A (1) of the Act, I am of the opinion that the assurance company cannot be made liable for payment of ad interim compensation in such circumstances. My aforesaid view is also supported by a Division Bench decision of this court reported in 1987 BLT 274.
10. However, Mrs. Jaya Roy submits that opportunity should be given to the claimant-respondent No. 1 to file a petition praying therein to direct the owner of the truck to pay ad interim compensation. In my view, no specific direction is required for this. If the law permits, the claimant can make such an application which will be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits.
11. My attention has been drawn at the Bar that on several occasions in similar facts and circumstances the Tribunals pass orders directing the insurance company to pay ad interim compensation to the claimant without looking into the provisions of the Act. It is expected that before passing any order the Tribunals should be well acquainted with the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules as well as the decisions rendered not only by this court but also by the different High Courts and the Supreme Court.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 6.9.1991 is hereby quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.