A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1998, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bamnibai w/o Laluji; Misc. Appeal No. 518 of 1998, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhapubai wd/o Laluji; and Misc. Appeal no. 521 of 1998, Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. v. Antarsingh s/o Laxmansingh; as common facts of the case and questions are involved in all these appeals. ( 2 ) THE appellant insurance company has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against common award dated 29. 1. 1998 passed by Member, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 230 of 1996 on the ground that Tribunal has wrongly passed the award against the insurance company whereas the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation on the ground that owner has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and he was carrying gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle after taking fare from them. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the claimants; the respondent No. 4 Hari Shankar is the driver of the vehicle, and respondent No. 5 Jhumarlal is the owner of truck bearing registration number RSO 3951. The said truck met with an accident on 12. 7. 1992. The claimants were travelling in the said truck from Kota to Agar. The said truck turned turtle and passengers received injuries. Laluji and two other labourers died on the spot due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. Claimants filed claim petition for compensation. The matter was inquired by the Tribunal and awarded compensation to the injured claimants and also to the legal representatives of the deceased persons. In the written statement insurance company took the objection that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and since the owner of the truck was carrying gratuitous passengers, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for the payment of compensation. The Tribunal rejected both the objections and has held that the driver was having a valid driving licence and since the insurance company has failed to prove that the passengers were gratuitous passengers and they were travelling in the goods vehicle after payment of money, therefore, the insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation. The Tribunal rejected both the objections and has held that the driver was having a valid driving licence and since the insurance company has failed to prove that the passengers were gratuitous passengers and they were travelling in the goods vehicle after payment of money, therefore, the insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation. Against the said award, insurance company has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Pramod Mitha, the learned counsel for appellant insurance company; Mr. Sanjay Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, owner of the truck and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of claimants- respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also on behalf of respondent No. 4 driver. ( 5 ) THE submission of Mr. Mitha is that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimants were gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and, therefore, there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company is not liable for the liability. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision in the case of Mallawwa v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 1 (SC ). ( 6 ) IN reply Mr. Sharma supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal after discussing the evidence on record has found that the claimants were not gratuitous passengers and the insurance company has failed to prove this fact. Accordingly, the insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation and the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation against insurance company ( 7 ) FOR assessing the correct facts, I have perused the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimants. The claimants are illiterate, poor and rustic villagers. They were returning back from Kota, Rajasthan to their place of residence Agar, District shajapur. ( 8 ) PW 1 Antarsingh, during his cross-examination, in para 11 has stated that they had purchased 40 to 45 bags of potatoes and were carrying them for selling purposes in the truck. PW 2 Dhapubai has also stated in the cross-examination that she has not given any fare to the driver of the truck and Antarsingh was coming along with the bags of potato. PW 2 Dhapubai has also stated in the cross-examination that she has not given any fare to the driver of the truck and Antarsingh was coming along with the bags of potato. PW 3 Bamnibai and PW 4 Bhuwan have also made similar statements in their cross-examination that they had purchased potatoes and they were travelling with their goods in the goods vehicle. The Tribunal has also observed that the insurance company examined one assistant Administrative Officer, Mahaveer prasad Sharma in rebuttal and they have also filed some documents, Exhs. D-6 to D-12 by which their Inspector T. N. Tandon had recorded the statements of all the claimants. But the Tribunal further observed that the insurance company has not examined the aforesaid Inspector T. N. Tandon though he was alive. In the cross-examination dw 1 M. P. Sharma has not identified the claimants whose statements were recorded by the Inspector Tandon. Thus those statements were found contradictory. Therefore, after appreciating the evidence on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the documents Exhs. D-6 to D-12 cannot be read in the evidence. The Tribunal also found that there was some interpolation in Exhs. D-6 to d-12 and the fact of recovery of fare of rs. 20 each was inserted later on in the statements. Therefore, looking to the entire evidence of the claimants as well as of the respondent, the Tribunal found that the insurance company has failed to prove that the claimants were not carrying the goods but they were travelling after payment of fare and they were gratuitous passengers and held that in the absence of any positive evidence insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. ( 9 ) AFTER the case of Mallawwa, 1999 acj 1 (SC), in the case of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 acj 1 (SC), it has been held by the Apex court that "under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class". Subsequently, also in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. National insurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 1565 (SC), supreme Court considered three category of cases. First category of cases arise out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (under the old Act ). Subsequently, also in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. National insurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 1565 (SC), supreme Court considered three category of cases. First category of cases arise out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (under the old Act ). Second category of cases arise out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (under the new Act) prior to its amendment in 1994. Third category of cases also arise under the new Act but after its amendment by Act 54 of 1994. It has been further held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case about third category of cases as under:"the third category of cases where a similar question is raised regarding liability of the insurance company under the new Act after its 1994 amendment. The submission for the claimant is, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation both in view of the decision of this court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 acj 1 (SC) and also in view of its 1994 amendment. This court in this case, while interpreting section 147 (1) (b) (i)and (ii) of the new Act holds the insurance company liable to pay the compensation both for the owner and his representative and also for the gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. In this third category, in spite of the said declaration the claimants have confined their claim only for the owner or his representative who was travelling in a goods vehicle and not for the gratuitous passenger. Since Satpal Singh (supra), confers right over gratuitous passengers also, which is not claimed by any of the claimants under this category, thus declaration of law in Satpal Singh (supra), is not required to be considered for this category, as claim for the owner and his representative is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the insurance company after its aforesaid amendment in 1994 that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for such person even when they were travelling in a goods vehicle. This is in view of 1994 amendment in sub-clause (i) of section 147 (1) (b) of the new Act in which the following words were brought in: '. . . Injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. This is in view of 1994 amendment in sub-clause (i) of section 147 (1) (b) of the new Act in which the following words were brought in: '. . . Injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. ' thus, this category of cases are also disposed of by declaring that compensation awarded in such cases where deceased or injured persons were travelling in a goods carriage who were owner or his authorised representative, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. " ( 10 ) IN the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting section 147 (1) (i) and (ii) has held that: "insurance company is liable to pay compensation both for the owner of goods and his representative and also for the gratuitous passengers travelling in goods vehicle or in any type of vehicle". ( 11 ) IN Satpal Singh's case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the court has relied on the amendment of 1994 in section 147 which reads as under: "under section 147 of the new Act, (after amendment of 1994) the policy must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in subsection (2) (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 authorised 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; (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. " ( 12 ) THEREFORE, as has been held in the case of Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC) and also in the case of Ramesh Kumar, 2001 acj 1565 (SC), that after the amendment of 1994 in section 147 of the Motor Vehicles act, the limit contained in the old Act has been removed and the policy should ensure the liability incurred and cover injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. As per the aforesaid decision policy includes the liability of claimants who were travelling in the vehicle with the goods. Thus, for these category of cases compensation awarded in such cases, where deceased or injured persons were travelling in goods vehicle carried by owner or authorised representative, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. ( 13 ) IN the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Rajni Bai, 2002 ACJ 56 (MP), the Division Bench of this High Court, after placing reliance on the decision in the case of Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has held that' when the passengers were travelling in the truck with their goods, the insurance company is liable for the pay ment of compensation. ( 14 ) AGAIN in the case of Kunwariya Bai v. Mohan Lal, 2002 ACJ 77 (MP), again placing reliance on the decision in the case of Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the division Bench has held that if the insurance company has failed to produce the policy, it has to be held that carrying of gratuitous passenger is covered under the policy. ( 15 ) THOUGH in this case policy has been produced but the insurance company has failed to prove that the claimants those who were travelling in the vehicle were gratuitous passengers. It was the burden on the insurance company to prove that the passengers who were travelling in the vehicle were also not travelling with their goods. In this connection the insurance company has produced the inquiry report of T. N. Tandon, Inspector, but the insurance company has failed to examine him in the evidence. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of T. N. Tandon, who had conducted the inquiry in the matter, it cannot be held that the passengers who were travelling with the goods were travelling as gratuitous passengers and were not travelling along with the goods. ( 16 ) WHAT this court has to consider while recording its conclusions is the evidence on record. When the insurance company has not produced the evidence and has also not proved the inquiry report by examining the relevant witness T. N. Tandon and in absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not proper. When the insurance company has not produced the evidence and has also not proved the inquiry report by examining the relevant witness T. N. Tandon and in absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not proper. In fact in the light of the evidence on record, the tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company has failed to prove that the claimants were gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability. Thus, after considering the evidence on record and considering the case-law cited before me, i am also of the opinion that in the absence of any evidence on record that the passengers who were travelling were not travelling with the goods and were gratuitous passengers, the insurance company is liable and the award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified. I also find that in the absence of any contrary evidence on record no interference can be made by this court in the award passed by the Tribunal. ( 17 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this and connected appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Record be returned. Appeals dismissed. .