JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 3.9.1992 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1992 by which though the appellants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, jeep No. MP 18-1085 were saddled with liability to pay compensation, but respondent No. 3, the insurer was exonerated from its liability. 2. The facts not disputed in this appeal are that in the night intervening between 28/29.4.1990, a minor boy Mahendra Kumar Pataskar, aged about 14 years, was travelling from Kotma to Shahdol along with others in the jeep No. MP 18-1085, which met with an accident near a pulia at Jamua. The minor boy Mahendra Kumar Pataskar sustained grievous injuries, which proved fatal. Claim for compensation was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the unfortunate parents of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal held that the appellants, owner and driver of the said jeep were liable to pay compensation of Rs. 44,500. However, the respondent No. 3 insurer was exonerated from liability as there was breach of policy conditions. It was held that since the jeep was insured for private use and it was carrying passengers, after realising Rs. 10 each from the passengers including the deceased, the insurer was not liable to reimburse the amount of compensation to the owner of the jeep. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the appellants had filed another appeal (M.A. No. 164 of 1993) against the award granted in favour of another passenger Mahesh Prasad. In the said appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has also fastened the liability on the appellants, relying upon B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC). 5. It is clear that the accident took place when the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had already come into force. Therefore, the decision in the claim shall be governed by the said Act. It is also not disputed that the offending jeep was insured with respondent No. 3. As has been held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the insurance company cannot escape its liability to cover the risk of third party. Therefore, the decision in the claim shall be governed by the said Act. It is also not disputed that the offending jeep was insured with respondent No. 3. As has been held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the insurance company cannot escape its liability to cover the risk of third party. In view of above and the Division Bench decision in M.A. No. 164 of 1993, which covers the present case also, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 shall be liable to reimburse the liability of payment of awarded amount to the owner thereof and the award deserves to be modified to the above extent. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award against the appellant though is maintained, it is further directed that the appellant No. 1, owner would be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No. 3, insurance company. In case the amount has already been paid by the appellant No. 1 owner, he shall be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., otherwise, the respondent No. 3 shall be also jointly and severally liable along with the appellants to pay the amount of award to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2.