( 1 ) SINCE all these appeals arise out of same accident and since the O. Ps. in which the awards are passed, which are the subject matters of these appeals, were disposed of by a common order by the Tribunal below, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) FIRST respondent in C. M. A. No. 2582 is the claimant in O. P. No. 1425 of 1998. First respondent in C. M. A. No. 2588 is the claimant in O. P. No. 1424 of 1998. Respondents 1 to 4 in C. M. A. No. 2591 of 2003 are the claimants in O. P. No. 1414 of 1998. the appellant-Insurance Company in these three C. M. As. is the third respondent in all the three O. Ps. ( 3 ) THE claimants in O. P. No. 1425 of 1998, o. P. NO. 1424 of 1998 and Gopala Chary, husband of 1st Petitioner, father of 2nd petitioner and son of Petitioners 3 and 4 in o. P. No. 1414 of 1998 were travelling in the lorry bearing No. ATT 3159 belonging to the second respondent with their goods. Since the said lorry met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver resulting in the death of Gopala Chary and injuries to the claimants in O. Ps. 1425 and 1424 of 1998, the above O. Ps. were filed seeking compensation from the owner and the insurer of the lorry ATT 3159. The tribunal held that the appellant-insurer is also liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said award, these appeals are filed by the Insurer of the lorry. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing strong reliance on New india Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and others contends that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants in as much as the decision relied upon by the tribunal in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and others is over ruled in the said decision. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The finding of the Tribunal that the victims in the accident were travelling with their goods in the lorry at the time of accident become final. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The finding of the Tribunal that the victims in the accident were travelling with their goods in the lorry at the time of accident become final. So, it is clear that the victims were travelling in the lorry as owners of goods and not as passengers. ( 5 ) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 was amended in 1994 by adding the sentence "including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle", in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of that Act. In asharani case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the supreme Court observed:- "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 owners of the goods or his authorized 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". So, it is clear that by virtue of 1994 amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 insurer statutorily has to cover the owner of the goods, or his authorized representative, travelling in the goods vehicle. Since the accident occurred on 17-7-1998, years after the 1994 Amendment, and since the insurance of the vehicle with the appellant is admitted, appellant is bound to cover the risk of the owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle. ( 6 ) IF the appellant-Insurance Company feels that there is a breach of terms of policy between it and the second respondent, by the second respondent, its remedy is to recover the amount of compensation paid by it to third parties from the second respondent. But it cannot deny its liability to the victims of the accident who are travelling in a goods vehicle as the owner of the goods or as the authorized representative of the owner of the goods being transported in the good vehicle. ( 7 ) IN view of the above the Tribunal making the appellant also liable for payment of the compensation to the claimants in the o. Ps. cannot be said to be improper and so I find no merit in these appeals. ( 7 ) IN view of the above the Tribunal making the appellant also liable for payment of the compensation to the claimants in the o. Ps. cannot be said to be improper and so I find no merit in these appeals. ( 8 ) THESE appeals are, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.