ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This appeal has been preferred from a judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 28-9-1992 in the Motor Accident Case No. 61 of 1991. The moot point of argument of the appellant-Insurance Company before this Court is that the person who ex pired, was gratuitous passenger, as such not entitled for any compensation. There was no occasion of such person to sit on the mudguard of the vehicle i. e. the tractor, which usually carry out goods. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company points out the scope and ambit of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) WE have carefully gone through such Section and found in sub- section (;) (b) the words "any person", there after, the words "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle" were incor porated by way of amendment w. e. f. 14-11-1994. Learned Counsels, argued before this Court, by citing 3 Supreme Court judgments on the subject-matter whether gratuitous passenger can or cannot be allowed to get any compen sation in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court.

(3.) IN V. Chinnanma's case (supra) Supreme Court held that the Factor cannot be held to be passenger's vehicle. However, in the operative para graph it was said that "however, even if it be assumed that: the trailer would answer the description of the "goods carriage" as contained in Section 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by decision of this Court in Asha Rani's case, (supra) and other decisions following the same, as the ac cident had taken place on 24-11 -1991, i. e. , much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment.