JUDGMENT K.K. Usha, J. 1. M.F.A.No. 746/99 to O. P. No. 21598/99 arise out of ten petitions filed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by persons injured in a motor accident happened on 20-11-1993. A separate award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O. P. (MV) 247/94 from which arises M. F. A. 746/99. In all the other nine petitions a common award dated 27-2-1999 was passed. 2. O.P.No. 18866/99 to M. F. A. No. 1598/96 arise out of claim petitions filed by persons injured in an accident happened on 7-5-1991. All the petitions were disposed of by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda under a common award dated 24-7-1996. 3. In all the above appeals and original petitions at the instance of the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. a common issue arises for consideration. The issue is whether an Act policy issued under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would cover passengers in a goods vehicle. The vehicle involved in the first batch of cases is a lorry bearing registration No. KLA-6217. Number of persons were travelling in the lorry. It capsized, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, resulting in death of two passengers and injury to other passengers. O. P. (MV) 247/94 and O. P. (MV) 285/94 are filed by legal heirs of two passengers who died in the accident. All the other eight petitions were filed by the injured passengers. 4. In the second batch of cases the vehicle involved is a tempo van bearing registration No. KRK 1503. As a result of the accident happened to the above vehicle on 7-5-1991 five passengers were injured. They are the petitioners in O. P. (MV) Nos. 1418/93 to 3420/93 from which arise the second batch of appeals. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the above mentioned cases took the view that a passenger in a goods vehicle would also be covered by an Act policy under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus the Insurance Companies were found liable to pay the compensation found due to the injured persons and also to the legal heirs of the deceased passengers. The above finding is being challenged by the Insurance Companies mainly relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mallawwa etc. The above finding is being challenged by the Insurance Companies mainly relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mallawwa etc. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 1999 SC 589 . Since some dispute is raised on the scope of the above decision by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we will refer to relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and then provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in order to examine whether the present cases would come under the scope of the dictum laid down in AIR 1999 SC 589 . 6. Provisions parallel to those contained in S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were incorporated in S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. S.95 before it was amended by Act 56 of 1969 was as under: "95. 6. Provisions parallel to those contained in S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were incorporated in S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. S.95 before it was amended by Act 56 of 1969 was as under: "95. Requirements 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 or by a cooperative society allowed under S.108 to transact the business of an insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-s.(2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not except as may be otherwise provided under sub-s.(3) 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, and such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) 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, or (iii) to cover any contractual liability." After the Amendment by Act 56 of 1969 the provision read as follows: "96. 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 (or by a cooperative society allowed under S.108 to transact the business of an insurer) and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-s.(2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the 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; (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 (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) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) 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, or (iii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared 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." 7. The relevant provision of S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before its amendment by Act 54 of 1994 reads as follows: "147. Requirements 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-s.(2) -- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the 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; (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 (ii) 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) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets in the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability." 8. By Act 54 of 1994 which came into force from 14-11-1994 sub-s.(1) of clause.(b)(i) was amended by adding the following words after injury to any person:- "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle." Thus after the amendment S.147(1)(b)(i) reads as follows:- "(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 authorized 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." 9. In AIR 1999 SC 589 the Supreme Court after referring to the provisions contained under S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before amendment in 1969 observed that clause (b) of sub-s.(1) of S.95 would take into its fold 'any person' and every motor 'vehicle'. Thereafter certain exceptions are carved out of the general category. This was achieved by the provisions contained under the proviso (ii). It was observed that in the absence of the proviso the main provision would have included all classes of vehicle including goods vehicle and all passengers whether carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment or otherwise. The words "any person" in the main provision would have included the employee of the person insured also, if the provision under proviso (i) were not there. 10. After referring to the amendment which was brought by Act 56 of 1969 it was further observed that the only effect of making a special provision for passengers of a public service vehicle by the amendment was that proviso (ii) thereafter remained applicable to vehicles other than public service vehicles. Thereafter, it was observed as follows:- "10. For the purposes of S.95, ordinarily a vehicle could have been regarded as a vehicle in which passengers have carried if the vehicle was of that class. Thereafter, it was observed as follows:- "10. For the purposes of S.95, ordinarily a vehicle could have been regarded as a vehicle in which passengers have carried if the vehicle was of that class. Keeping in mind the classification of vehicles, by the Act, the requirement of registration with particulars including the class to which it belonged, requirement of obtaining a permit for using the vehicle for different purposes and compulsory coverage of insurance risk, it would not be proper to consider a goods vehicle as a passenger vehicle on the basis of a single use or use on some stray occasions of that vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward. For the purpose of construing a provision like proviso (ii) to S.95(1)(b), the correct test to determine whether a passenger was carried for hire or reward, would be whether there has been systematic carrying of passengers. Only if the vehicle is so used then that vehicle can be said to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward." Thus, the Apex Court took the view that a passenger in a goods vehicle is not covered by policy issued under S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. To that extent there is no difficulty, but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out the observations contained in Para.13 of the judgment which reads as follows: "13. The 1939 Act is now replaced by the 1988 Act. S.147 which corresponds to old S.95 has been substantially altered by the Legislature. Therefore, the above interpretation of S.95 of the 1939 Act will govern the cases which have arisen under the 1939 Act." The contention is that the above observation would mean that the position of a passenger in a goods vehicle under the provisions of S.147 of 1988 Act is different and therefore, the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision cannot be directly made applicable to the fact of the present case. 11. We are unable to accept the above contention for more than one reason. The reference is already made the provisions contained under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before its amendment in the year 1994 and after its amendment. The only difference between the provisions of S.95 and S.147 before its amendment is the deletion of the second proviso under S.147(1)(b)(ii). The reference is already made the provisions contained under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before its amendment in the year 1994 and after its amendment. The only difference between the provisions of S.95 and S.147 before its amendment is the deletion of the second proviso under S.147(1)(b)(ii). We have already referred to the view taken by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision that even though the two provisions are placed below clause.(ii) under S.(1)(b), they are really added to clause.(i) of S.95(b)(i). A Full Bench of this court had occasion to consider the effect of deletion of the second proviso in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajaykumar, 1999 (2) KLT 886 . This court took the view that in the absence of the second proviso a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle will also be covered by a policy issued under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as he would come within the term "any person" in S.147(1)(b)(i). Gratuitous passengers were excluded as a result of the provisions contained under second proviso. While arriving at the above conclusion this court had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 589 . Thus, when we compare the provisions of S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, with S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only difference is deletion of the second proviso which would not in any way widen the application of the provisions of S.147 more than the provisions contained under S.95 of 1939 Act. It is also relevant to note that by an amendment under Act 54 of 1994 owner of the goods or its authorised representative carried in the vehicle were specifically included among the category of injured persons coming under S.147(1)(b)(i). Therefore, according to us, till the above amendment came into force the effect of the provisions contained under S.147 was the same as the one in S.95 of the 1939 Act and therefore the view taken by the Apex Court that a passenger in a goods vehicle will not cover by an Act policy issued under S.95 would be applicable to an Act policy issued under S.147 of the 1988 Act before its amendment in 1994. 12. 12. Apart from the above, we find that Civil Appeal No. 3659/93 filed by a claimant challenging the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which is reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Irawwa and others, 1992 ACJ 918 , was dismissed by the Supreme Court while allowing the appeals filed by the Insurance Companies. Para.3 of the judgment of the Supreme Court would show that in an accident which occurred on 6-11-1990 one Suresh who was travelling in a goods carriage vehicle died and his widow Mallawa filed a claim petition for compensation. A reading of 1992 ACJ 918 would show that the claim petition filed by Mallava under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was originally allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against which Oriental Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. While allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company in 1992 ACJ 918 a Bench of the Karnataka High Court following an earlier Full Bench decision of the very same High Court, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma and others, 1992 ACJ 1 , took the view that an Act policy issued under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not cover a passenger in a goods vehicle. As mentioned earlier, the accident in the above case had happened on 6-11-1990 and it is the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that are to be applied in this case. Therefore, according to us, the observations contained in Para.13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court should not stand in the way of this court applying the same principle to an accident which happened after the 1988 Act came into force but before its amendment in 1994. 13. The learned Tribunal while disposing of O. P. (MV) 3416/93 and connected cases under a common award relied on a decision of a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Josoda Mohanta and others, AIR 1996 Ori. 120 . On going through the above judgment we find that the learned Judge after referring to the words "any person" used under S.147(1)(b)(i) took the view that the above provision would take in a passenger in a goods vehicle also. 120 . On going through the above judgment we find that the learned Judge after referring to the words "any person" used under S.147(1)(b)(i) took the view that the above provision would take in a passenger in a goods vehicle also. With great respect we may observe that the above view was taken without taking into consideration the limitations imposed on S.147(1)(b)(i) by the proviso (i) and (ii). This aspect has been specifically considered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 589 . 14. In the result, we hold that a passenger in a goods vehicle is not covered by an Act policy under S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of a claim arising out of an accident occurred before 14-11-1994 namely, the date on which the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force. Therefore, the insurance policies issued under S.147 would not cover the passengers in the goods vehicle. 15. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation due to the claimants in each of the petition. The award is modified to the above effect. The appeals stand allowed. No costs. The amount deposited by the Insurance Companies will be permitted to be withdrawn.