G.S. Chaube, J.
1. On a petition having been filed by and on behalf of the appellants, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Divisional Manager, M.A. Nos. 67/98(R), 68/98(R), 69/98(R), 70/98(R), 71/9S(R), 72/98(R) have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common order. All of them have arisen from identical orders passed by the 5th Addl. Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi on applications under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) in consequence of a fatal accident resulting in death of the Kin of the applicants therein. By the impugned orders, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has directed the appellants, particularly appellant No. 1-Insurance Company, to pay to each set of applicants in those, applications a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation within one month from the date of the order, otherwise interest @ 12% per annum is to be levied.
2. The admitted facts giving rise to these appeals under Section 173 of the Act that Md. Soaib who has been arrayed as Respondent No. 6 in M.A. Nos. 68/98R to 70/98R, R. No. 7 in M.A. No. 71/98R and respondent No. 9 in M.A. Nos. 67/98R and 72/98R, is the owner of a truck, that is, goods carrying-transport vehicle bearing registration No. BPN 2489. That vehicle was registered with appellant No. 1 under Policy No. MV/14/17 (Certificate No. 332203/21/185) valid between 10.4.96 and 9.4.97. On 1.10.96, the said truck was carrying thereon certain amount of goods with owners thereof numbering about 30-35 for reaching them to Bargaon (Chainpur). It is stated that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle in a very high speed and negligently. The result was that it turned turtle by the side of the road at a place near Nayee Sarai. Several persons got injured. Nine persons named Rajesh Munda, Maheswar Rai, Saraswati Devi, Kaushalya Devi, Shankar Sao, Mahesh Pd. Agarwal, Laxmi Rai, Om Sao, Rafique Mian and Lalita Kumari died at the spot. The surviving injured were rushed to Nayee Sarai Hospital where one of them named Kishori Prasad Agarwallodged. First Information Report with an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Ramgarh police within whose jurisdiction the accident had taken place. The police took up investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the said truck named Md. Riyaz @ Raju for commission of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The heirs and dependants of 6 of the deceased who had died at the spot, namely, Shankar Sao, Laxmi Rai, Saraswati Devi, Mahesh Prasad, Kaushalya Devi and Lalita Kumari laid their claim for compensation on the principles of non-fault liability ay envisaged under Section 140 of the Act. Their claim applications were registered as Compensation Case Nos. 196/96, 197/96, 199/96, 200/96, 201/96 and 203/96. By identical orders dated 10.3.98, the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi has directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to each set of the applicants in all the six compensation cases. That order has been impugned in these appeals.
3. MA No. 67/98R has arisen from Compensation case No. 201/96, while M.A. Nos. 68/98R, 69/98R, 70/98R, 71/98R and 72/98R are directed against orders impugned in Compensation Case Nos. 196/96, 200/96, 199/96, 197/96 and 203/96 respectively.
4. The appellants have challenged the orders made under Section 140 of the Act on the ground that they were not liable to pay the compensation as insurer of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident because even though it was a goods carrying transport vehicle and was insured, as such, it was being used as a transport vehicle for carrying passengers. Therefore, in terms of the contract of insurance incorporated in the policy, they were not liable to indemnify the owner of his liability. According to the appellants, the deceased for whose death compensation under Section 140 of the Act was claimed and has been allowed by the Claims Tribunal, were unauthorized passengers and in law Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation if they died due to accident involving the vehicle on which they were travelling. In support of this contention, Mr. Bhowmik, Counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on two decisions of this Bench of the High Court; one reported in 1995(2) T.A.C. 57 and another at page 60 of the same report. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Turki Hi @ KVE and Anr. 1995 (2) T.A.C. 57, one Kundia Purty boarded a truck for returning home at Chaibassa on 29.6.84. On way the truck turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck, in consequence of which he died. A claim for compensation was preferred and during the pendency, thereof, interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- as provided under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was ordered to be made by the Insurance Company which had insured the owner of the ill-fated vehicle. The learned Single Judge of this Bench held that since the deceased was not shown to be travelling on the truck by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment, he was an unauthorised or illegal occupant of the vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for his liability if any, to pay such compensation. The same view was reiterated by another learned Single Judge of this Bench in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi and Ors. 1995 (2) T.A.C. 60. In that case also, the deceased for whose death compensation on the principle of no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Act was claimed and allowed, was travelling on a truck unauthorisedly and met with death when that truck was involved in an accident.
5. There can be no dispute regarding the legal position that in view of the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with the liability of the owner of the insured vehicle involved in a road accident resulting in death of or bodily injuries to some persons. Therefore, if the liability to pay compensation on the principle of no-fault liability can be validly fastened, on the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident resulting in death of the person for whose death such compensation is sought, the insurer has to indemnify such liability to its fullest extent. The Insurance Company can avoid the liability of the person whom it has insured only on the grounds stated in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, namely, that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy excluding the use of the vehicle for hire or reward where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward; or for organised racing and speed testing; or for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the Vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle; or without side car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or the driver was not person authorised or had been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence; or where the injury is caused or contributed to by conditions' of war, civil war, riot Or civil commotion; or on the ground that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of the material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in' some material particular.
6. Section 147(1) of the Act (as amended by Act 54 of 1994) lays down that in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter XI (providing for insurance of motor vehicles against third-party risk), 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 vehicle or damage to any properly of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, and (ii) 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, provided that a policy shall not be required to coyer 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 injure 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 engaged in driving the vehicle or if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or to cover any contractual liability. Sub-section (2) lays down that 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 limits, inter alia, of the amount of liability incurred.
7. It may be mentioned that in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, there was a provision in Section 95 thereof to the effect that a policy required and taken in accordance with the provisions thereof was not required 'Except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises.' In Section 147 of the Act, the said provision is omitted. Taking note of such omission in Section 147 of the Act, a learned Single Judge of this Bench in the case of Kalawati Devi v. Zawahirul Nisan and Anr. 1998 (2) AJR 48 has held that the effect of the omission of Sub-section (ii) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 means that now the liabilities set out at Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 147 of 1988 are required to be compulsorily insured. As noticed earlier, according to the provision of amended Section 147 of the Act, the policy required to be issued thereunder must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons '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 vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. In other words, if in a goods carriage, the owner of the goods loaded thereon for transportation or his representative, accompanies the goods by travelling thereon and sustains bodily injury or dies in course of an accident involving the goods carriage, such liability of the owner of the vehicle is covered by the insurance policy issued by the insurance company. In the instant cases, the appellants have annexed to their application for additional evidence copies of the claim applications under Section 140 of the Act preferred by the claimants-respondents in each case with notice to show cause as Annexure P/2. They have also annexed therewith copies of their written statement an Annexure P/3 and subsequent application under Rule 17 of Order VI, CPC as Annexure P/4. In all the applications under Section 140 of the Act, the claimants have asserted that the deceased for whose death compensation was sought, were travelling on the truck with their goods for going to a market place from Ramgarh, meaning thereby that they had hired the vehicle for carriage of their goods and were accompanying the same. The correctness of this assertion of the claimants in all the applications under consideration has not been disputed by the Insurance Company (appellant No. 1) in its written statement. Therefore, if the owners were travelling on the truck in question for accompanying their goods or consignments loaded thereon and sustained bodily injury or died as a result of accident involving that vehicle making the owner of the vehicle liable to pay compensation for bodily injury or death, etc., such liability of the owner is covered by the policy of insurance issued by the appellant-Insurance company. Therefore, the Insurance company has to indemnify the owner insured of his liability even under Section 140 of the Act.
8. Mr. Bhowmik made a fervent effort to persuade me to believe that the truck in question even though meant for carriage of goods and in sured accordingly, had been converted into a passenger carrying public transport vehicle inasmuch as, according to the First Information Report, about 30-35 persons were travelling thereon. Therefore, according to him, the liability of the owner insured was not covered under the policy. Thus, the liability to pay compensation for the death of persons being carried unauthorisedly and against the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance squarely rests with the owner insured and the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify him for the same, it is urged.
9. Nowhere in the show cause or written statement filed by and on behalf of the Insurance Company in the Court below, it is even whispered that the owner of the truck was using it for the purposes of transporting passengers as canvassed by Mr. Bhowmik. On the other hand, in Annexure P/4, it has been staled that driver of the truck in question was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently with passengers on it under the authority of the owner of vehicle and as such the truck in question was being used for the purpose other than it was registered and insured 'without knowledge of the owner of the vehicle'. Plain meaning of this averment in Annexure P/4 is that even if the driver was carrying in the passengers and their goods, it was without, the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the position boils down to this that either the deceased and other occupants of the truck in question had hired the same for carriage of their goods and were accompanying their respective goods as alleged by them and not disputed in the written statement, or they were travelling gratuitously at the pleasure of the driver, may be on receiving some tips to be pocketed by him, but without the knowledge of the owner', as admitted by the Insurance Company in Annexure P/4. In the former event, the liability of the owner is squarely covered by the policy in view of the provision of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act. If, however, they were gratuitous travelers on the truck, even then the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability to indemnify the owner. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh and Ors. 2000 (1) BLJR 1, the apex Court has held that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third-party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force. In the case before the apex Court, one Dupinder Kaur, a 10-year-old girl, was travelling in a truck on 11.3.90. The truck met with an accident, as a result the girl died at the spot. A claim for compensation was preferred by her father, brother and sister under the provisions of the Act and the Claims Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimants as the owner of the Truck was found liable. Since the truck had been insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co., the latter was directed to make payment of compensation with interest. The Insurance company challenged that award on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the truck. Therefore, no liability can be fastened with it. The contention was repelled by the High Court and the matter reached the apex Court. On consideration of relevant provisions as contained in Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 vis-a-vis those of Section 147 of the new Act and decisions rendered by the same Court in the cases of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Put. Ltd. and Anr. : [1977]3SCR372 and Mallawwa and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR1999SC589 , the apex Court has held that the insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act covering third-party risk also covers the liability of the insured-owner in respect of even gratuitous passengers.
10. Therefore, I see no merit in the contention of the appellants that liability to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Act for the death of the deceased persons who were travelling on the truck insured by them squarely lay with the owner of the vehicle and such liability was excluded from 1he purview of the policy of insurance issued by them.
11. Mr. Bhowmik has also aired a grievance, to the effect that the Claims Tribunal passed the impugned orders without making any inquiry. According to him, before making the orders fur payment of compensation under Section 140 of the Act and directing thy appellants to pay the same, the Claims Tribunal should have made, at least, some sort of inquiry. Rule 246 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992, framed by the State Government under the rule-making power conferred under the Act, prescribes the procedure regarding compensation on the principle of no-fault liability. The rule prescribes a format of the application to be filed for compensation under Section 140 of the Act. It further provides that the application shall be accompanied by First Information Report, injury certificate or post-mortem report in case of death, heirship certificate in case of death, certificate from the registering authority regarding ownership of the vehicles involved in the accident, and particulars of insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 246 provides that for the purpose of adjudicating and awarding the claim, the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-Rule (8) requires service of notice of the application on the owner as well as the insurer, if any, of the vehicle involved in the accident. Sub-rule (9) lays down that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed with the application for compensation on the basis of First Information Report, injury certificate or post-mortem report in case of death, registration certificate of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, cover-note, certificate of insurance or the policy, relating to the insurance, of the vehicle against third-party risks; the nature of the treatment given by the medical officer who has treated the victim. From the impugned order, it appears that all the documents mentioned in Sub-rule (9) of Rule 246 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992 were furnished and considered while making the impugned orders/awards. When the Insurance company admitted every allegation of the claimants in its written statement and went to the extent of admitting in Annexure P/4 that the passengers were being carried without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, there was little to be enquired, by the Claims Tribunal before making the impugned orders/awards.
12. Thus, in view of what I have noted above, I am constrained to find that none of these batch appeals merits consideration. Therefore, they are dismissed in limine.