Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The application for substitution of LRs of deceased is allowed as his LRs are being represented by learned counsel Mr. H.S. Kharlia. Inspite of service, none entered appearance on behalf of Driver-respondent No. 7. (2). This appeal has been filed on a very limited issue against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- in case No. 43/93 dated 1.12.1995. (3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Shri Ran Singh alongwith his wife Hoshiyari Devi- respondent No.1- while going to Haryana, boarded vehicle meant exclusively for carrying goods and not passengers and met with an accident wherein Ran Singh died whereas his wife sustained injuries. After his death, the claimants respondents No.1 to 6 before this Court, filed claim petition for a sum of Rs.9,12,000/- asserting that the deceased was only 35 years of age and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from agricultural work. After considering the claim, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the claimants. There is no cross-appeal by the claimants against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (4). The Insurance Co. has filed the appeal on the ground that before the Tribunal specific objection had been taken to the extent that as the vehicle ensured with the Insurance Co. was meant for carrying the goods exclusively and as Ran Singh (deceased) and his wife were travelling as passengers, they were not entitled to recover anything from the Insurance Co. However, the learned Tribunal placing reliance upon various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court held that they were entitled to recover the compensation from the Insurance Company. Hence this appeal. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under appeal. (6). The judgments wherein it has been held that even the passengers travelling on hire or reward in the goods vehicle were entitled for compensation from the Insurance Co. had been referred to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench of the Honble Supreme Court after considering its earlier judgment Udeshi vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1), Mallawwa (Smt.) vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2),and New India Assurance Co. vs. Satpal Singh (3) held that the view taken by the Supreme Court in earlier cases particularly in Satpal Singh (supra) was not correct. Pvt. Ltd. (1), Mallawwa (Smt.) vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2),and New India Assurance Co. vs. Satpal Singh (3) held that the view taken by the Supreme Court in earlier cases particularly in Satpal Singh (supra) was not correct. The Large Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors. (4), has categorically held that passengers who got injured or dependents of such passengers who died while travelling in a goods vehicle would not be entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Company which has ensured the goods carriage. The Honble Supreme Court considered the statutory provisions, and particularly the amendment in the Act, 1988 w.e.f. 24.11.1994 in Section 147, and held that the amendment merely enables the insurance company to insure the owner of the goods or his authorised agent provided the vehicle owner pays extra premium for that. The Apex Court held as under :- ``It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification of an inherent position which is there is the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression `including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre-existed expression injury to any person is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpals case, therefore, must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed....Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor...An owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Courts decision in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh & Ors., (5), is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paid. (7). Thus, in view of the Larger Bench judgment in Asha Rani (supra), the award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as the Insurance Co. is concerned, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the reason that the law only permits the insurance company to insure the owner of the goods or his authorised agent at the most if the vehicle owner pays extra premium for the same. In the instant case, it is nobodys case that deceased Ran Singh had been he owner of the goods or his authorised agent. Admittedly, he was a passenger for hire and reward while going to Haryana alongwith his wife and, therefore, in such an eventuality, the insurance company cannot be held liable for any claim whatsoever. (8). Thus, the award under challenge is modified to the extent that whatever the Insurance Com. has paid to the claimants, as Shri Gopta states that Rs. 50,000/- has already been deposited out of Rs. 1,25,000/- shall not be recovered from the claimants, but the claimants shall be at liberty to recover the balance amount from the Truck owner and the driver. (9). With these observations the appeal stands disposed of finally. has paid to the claimants, as Shri Gopta states that Rs. 50,000/- has already been deposited out of Rs. 1,25,000/- shall not be recovered from the claimants, but the claimants shall be at liberty to recover the balance amount from the Truck owner and the driver. (9). With these observations the appeal stands disposed of finally. There shall be no order as to costs.