Tribunal has gone wrong in fixing the liability upon the Appellant and it is stated as perverse in all respects, as it stands contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court on the point. The learned counsel submits that no passenger can be carried in a goods carriage, other than the owner or his representative of the goods carried or the employee of the insured to the extent as specified in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the instant cases, the deceased/injured were not travelling in such capacity and as such, the compensation was not liable to be satisfied by the AppellantInsurance Company by virtue of law declared by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 . There is a further contention for the Appellant that the vehicle involved is having the seating capacity of only 1 (driver) + 1 . If at all anybody is carried in the vehicle, either in the capacity of owner or his representative of the goods or as the employee of the insured, he has to be carried only in the 'cabin' of the vehicle, based on the seating capacity, as permitted. In the instant cases, the deceased as well as the injured were admittedly not carried in the cabin of the vehicle, but were travelling on the platform of the vehicle, as borne by the pleadings and evidence on record. In the said circumstances, there is clear contravention of Rule 97(2) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 as well and as such, the liability does not come within the purview of the statutory policy issued by the Appellant in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 423.
