ORDER S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 2-4-1993 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul in Claim Case No. 3/90. There are other appeals registered as Misc. Appeal No. 341/93, Misc. Appeal No. 343/93 and Misc. Appeal No. 344/93 arising out of the consolidated award dated 2-4-1993 passed in Claim Case Nos. 3/90, 4/907 9/90, 20/90 and 30/90. 2. The disposal of this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other three appeals Misc. Appeal No. 341/93, Misc. Appeal No. 343/93 and Misc. Appeal No. 344/93. 3. The undisputed facts of this case are that on 5-11 -1989, respondent No. 1 Jagdish, Chhotelal, Sawai Ram Davande, Lakhanlal and deceased Saddu were travelling in a truck belonging to respondent No. 3, Dharmendra Kumar Rathore. It was being driven by respondent No. 2, Ram Kishan alias Ram Kishore Rathore. These passengers were going to Sarni on Baretha-Sarni Road. It was claimed by all the claimants except Sawai Ram Davande and deceased Saddu that they were accompanying their goods. The only persons who were not accompanying the goods were Sawai Ram Davande and deceased Saddu. Saddu was travelling as a passenger and Sawai Ram Davande, being a Process Server in Income-Tax Department, was going to Sarni for Government work. It so happened that the truck turned turtle and, therefore, all the persons except one Mohan Pawar suffered injuries and Saddu died at the spot. All the claimants claimed that they had suffered injuries on account of negligence of the driver, the respondent No. 2. 4. The driver and the owner of the truck i.e., the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claimed in their written statement that this was a case of inevitable accident and, therefore, they claimed that they were not liable. It was further asserted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, respondent No. 2 in driving the truck. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company, on the other hand, raised the defence that the truck in question was a goods carrying vehicle. It was claimed that there was no liability of the appellant either statutory or contractual because the passengers could not be carried in goods vehicle. The liability of the persons accompanying their goods was also denied. 6. The Claims Tribunal granted an award of Rs. It was claimed that there was no liability of the appellant either statutory or contractual because the passengers could not be carried in goods vehicle. The liability of the persons accompanying their goods was also denied. 6. The Claims Tribunal granted an award of Rs. 12,750/- to the respondent No. 1, the claimant in this appeal with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 27-11-1989. In Misc. Appeal No. 343/93 (Claim Case No. 20/93) Sawai Ram Davande was granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 18,200/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 30-3-1990. In Misc. Appeal No. 344/93, the Mohan Pawar and Baijabai were granted compensation in Claim Case No. 9/90 the amount of Rs. 72,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 19-1-1990. In Misc. Appeal No. 341/93, Lakhanlal was awarded an amount of Rs. 20,465/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 4-5-1990 in Claim Case No. 30/90. It is reiterated that this Court is deciding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company in all these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal on issue No. 4, at Paragraph 14 of its award, is incorrect as there was no contractual liability as per IMT 14-b of the conditions of insurance. It was pointed out that policy was limited only to endorsement Nos. 22, 23, 56-B and 26 attached with the policy. The endorsement No. 14-b regarding legal liability in respect of authorised non-paid fair passengers was not a condition of insurance as no premium was paid. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to claim the benefit of contractual liability under proviso No. (ii) of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 147(1) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant, on the other hand, contended that the liability to pay damages is not contractual but is statutory in nature in view of Section 147 of the Act. 9. Therefore, this Court is required to decide the question which now arises in this appeal and the connected appeals; whether the appellant is statutorily liable to pay the compensation to the claimants ? 9. Therefore, this Court is required to decide the question which now arises in this appeal and the connected appeals; whether the appellant is statutorily liable to pay the compensation to the claimants ? So far as Jagdish Kumar Rathore is concerned, the finding of the Claims Tribunal is that he was accompanying the goods and so also the other claimant Lakhanlal. So far as Saddu was concerned, it has been held that he was also accompanying the goods. So far as Sawai Ram Davande is concerned, the finding is not very clear but the Claims Tribunal has taken a view that Sawai Ram Davande was also travelling alongwith the goods but it appears to this Court that this finding cannot be accepted, for the reason, the specific case of Sawai Ram Davande was that he was going on Government duty and he was a gratituous passenger. This appeal is being decided as per above findings. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Mallawwa etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 589 , wherein it has been held that insurer would not be liable under Section 95(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment clearly confines the decision to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 1969 and elaborated on the legal position after the amendment of 1969. It may be recalled here that the Supreme Court was dealing with interpretation of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 relating to the accidents which had taken place between 1971 and 1985. In that case, in order to determine the statutory liability, proviso NO. (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which remain unamended throughout after its introduction, was considered and the Supreme Court was of the view that the exception mentioned by way of proviso No. (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would govern the facts of accidents where the passengers were being carried for hire and reward. The Supreme Court, after considering the language, laid down at page 591, as follows :-- "Para7. The Supreme Court, after considering the language, laid down at page 591, as follows :-- "Para7. What is important to be noted is that the legislature, after providing generally in clause (b) of sub- section (1) in wide terms so as to include 'any person' and every motor Vehicle' within its sweep, carved out certain exception by adding a proviso to that clause. By proviso (ii), it restricted the generality of the main provision by confining the requirement to cases 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". In absence of the proviso the main provision would have included all classes of vehicles including goods vehicles and all passengers whether carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment or otherwise. 11. The Supreme Court made it clear that this interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would not apply to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Their Lordships observed at para 13 at page 595, as follows:-- "Para 13. The 1939 Act is now replaced by the 1988 Act. Section 147 which corresponds to old Section 95 has been substantially altered by the Legislature. Therefore, the above interpretation of Section 95 of the 1939 Act will govern the cases which have arisen under the 1939 Act. According to our interpretation of Section 95 (1) (b) (i) and the proviso, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed. In view of this matter, that case does not solve the problem. 12. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as stood at the time of accident in the cases at hand, reads as under :-- "Section 147. In view of this matter, that case does not solve the problem. 12. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as stood at the time of accident in the cases at hand, reads as under :-- "Section 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-section (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 carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. 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." (2) 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 following limits, namely :-- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any properly of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purpose of this chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons." It is clear from clause (b) of Section 147(1) of the Act that the liability of the insurer would be in respect of death or bodily injury to any person. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company pointed out that the words including the owner of goods or is authorised represent alive carried in the vehicle' have been added by the Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994. 13. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent- claimant, on the other hand, that any liability which may be incurred by a person in respect of death or bodily injury to any person would be wide enough to cover the injury to persons travelling in a truck carrying goods. 14. This Court is of the view that the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-claimant appears to be correct. The subsequent amendment by Act No. 54 of 1994 dated 14-11-1994 was merely clarificatory. There is nothing in the initial Section 147 of the Act which restricts the liability of the insurer in respect of persons who are travelling in a goods vehicle. Section 147 of the Act is altogether different than the corresponding Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Supreme Court itself was conscious of this fact and, therefore, specifically limited the liability to cases arising under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 15. We may interpret the main provisions of Section 147 of the Act omitting the proviso for the time being in order to apply the law to the facts of the case. Section 147(1)(a) of the Act requires that a policy of insurance must be issued by the authorised insurer in respect of persons or class of persons to the extent mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act. Section 147(1)(b) of the Act is the section with which we are concerned. Section 147(1)(b) of the Act is in two parts. Section 147(1)(b) of the Act is the section with which we are concerned. Section 147(1)(b) of the Act is in two parts. Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act is the first part which deals with death or bodily injury to a third party or its properly. It requires that the policy issued by the insurer shall cover the liability of insurer regarding the death or bodily injury to a third party or its properly as a result of an accident by use of any vehicle in public place. Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act requires insurance policy to cover the liability of the insurer covering the case of the vehicle carrying a passenger in public service vehicle at public place. Accordingly, the statutory requirement is to insure the passenger suffering an accident by use of public service vehicle in a public place. 16. It cannot be denied that truck could be used or adopted to be used for carriage of passengers of hire or reward would be thus a public service vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(35) of the Act. The facts of this case reveal that the owner and the driver permitted the passengers to be carried in the truck alongwith goods or even otherwise. The truck was definitely running for hire or reward so far as it carried goods. The fact that the passengers too accompanied the goods would show that the owner and driver permitted the carriage of passengers as a part of contract of carriage of goods. It can be presumed that other passengers who did not carry goods must be travelling in the truck on account of contract of hire or reward. Even if they were gratituous passengers, it did not matter as the vehicle was adopted for the use of carriage of the passengers as the facts of this case revealed. Thus the truck would be public service vehicle as already stated. This Court is further of the view that the proviso does not throw any lighten the interpretation of Sections 147(1) (a) or (b) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the cases at hand. 17. Further the Section 147(2) of the Act covers any liability incurred in respect of death or bodily injury to a third party on account of an accident subject to proviso clauses (a) and (b) of that sub-section. 17. Further the Section 147(2) of the Act covers any liability incurred in respect of death or bodily injury to a third party on account of an accident subject to proviso clauses (a) and (b) of that sub-section. Omitting clause (b) from our consideration, we may consider if proviso is attracted in these cases. It is not in dispute that the liability for accident dated 5-11-1989 was covered by the insurance policy which commenced on 6-9-1989 and was to remain in force till 5-9-1990. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force on 1st July, 1989. For the aforesaid reason the liability under the policy in his case shall be governed by the Act. The proviso which deals with policies commenced before the promulgation of the Act is not attracted. The result of the discussion aforesaid is that this Court is of the view that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation alongwith the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The view taken by this Court is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh and others, reported in 2000(2) MPHT 340, brought to its notice after the order was already dictated. Thus there is no room for any doubt as the Supreme Court in Paragraph 11 stated as follows:-- "Para 11. The result is 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." 18. The result is that all these appeals fail and have no force and are hereby dismissed. In case, the claimants have not been paid the amount awarded by the Tribunal pursuant to any stay order granted by this Court in each case, the appellant who is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against it and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall deposit the amount together with interest within three months from the date of this order. 19. Misc. Appeals dismissed.