P. K. SAMANTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th November, 1997passed in M. A. C. Case No. 186 of 1993 by the M. A. C. Tribunal, Malda. By the aforesaid judgment and award, the owner of the offending vehicle has been directed to pay a statutory compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant-respondents. The owner of the offending vehicle has preferred the above appeal in this Court against the said judgment and award. ( 2 ) THE claimant-respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased who died in an accident while travelling in the offending vehicle No. W. G. R. 1202. The facts of the case as appear from the records of this case are that on 1st July, 1993 at about 9. 30 pm at night the victim was proceeding towards Malda Town from village Gobarjana in the said offending vehicle, the same vehicle lost control while avoiding hitting a buffalo and as a result of which the vehicle fell into a ditch near a culvert. As a consequence thereof, the predecessor of the claimant-respondent was thrown out of the vehicle and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. ( 3 ) FROM the evidence on record though it appears that the said victim was travelling in the said vehicle along with mangoes which were bought for the purpose of his business and the said vehicle was hired for carrying mangoes of the victim and others, but from the Insurance Certificate of the said vehicle it appears that the said vehicle has been referred to as a public carrier in a column of the said Insurance Policy. Be that as it may, the Claims Tribunal has dis-believed the fact that the said vehicle was hired for carrying mangoes by the victim or any other person who were travelling in the said vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal accordingly on consideration of the evidence of the parties and the materials on records has come to the finding that the said victim being a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle would be entitled to a statutory compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only and has directed that payment of such compensation to the claimant-respondents would be by the owner of the offending vehicle. 25,000/- only and has directed that payment of such compensation to the claimant-respondents would be by the owner of the offending vehicle. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, the owner appellant has challenged the said judgment and award upon contention that in view of the 1994 amendment in section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the Insurance Company would be able to pay such compensation by way of indemnifying the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the aforesaid contention, two questions fall for determination in the present appeal. (I)in view of the fact that goods were being carried in the offending vehicle and by taking into account the definition of ?goods carriage? as provided in section 2 (14) of the said Act as also the Insurance Policy wherein the offending vehicle has been described as a truck, the victim even if treated as a gratuitous passenger in such a goods vehicle, whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimant-respondents. (II)even upon holding on the basis of the evidence as adduced on behalf of the claimant-respondents that the victim was travelling in the offending vehicle as being the owner of the goods which were being carried in the same, whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay such compensation as awarded by treating the 1994 amendment of section 147 of the said Act as clarificatory one. In other words that would be the effect of 1994 amendment in section 147 of the said Act. ( 5 ) THE first question as formulated as above has been answered in no uncertain terms by a latest judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2004)2 SCC 1 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. ). It has been held therein that in the effect of 1994 amendment in section 147 is unambiguous. Where earlier, the words ? any person? could be construed as not to include the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives traveling in the goods vehicle such amendment has now made it clear that such a construction is no longer possible. The scope of this rationale does not however, extend to cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers, for whom no insurance premium was paid, have employed in goods vehicle as a medium of conveyance. The scope of this rationale does not however, extend to cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers, for whom no insurance premium was paid, have employed in goods vehicle as a medium of conveyance. In the said judgment, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2003)2 SCC 223 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani) has been relied upon. It has been further held that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 147 of the said Act speaks of the liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas under sub-clause (ii) thereof, an owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers traveling in such vehicle which would ultimately make the insurer liable for payment of compensation to such passengers. The premium, in view of the 1994 amendment, would not be required to be paid for covering the risk of the third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives, if travels in a goods vehicle and not any other passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. The Supreme Court has further made it clear by observing that it is manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives would be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, because of the amendment of 1994, but it was never the intention of the legislature to fix liability upon the insurer with respect to the passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated of, at the time when the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to extend the benefit of insurance to such category of people. ( 6 ) IN substance, the Supreme Court has held that gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle were either covered under the said Act prior to its amendment neither of 1994 nor even after its said amendment. ( 6 ) IN substance, the Supreme Court has held that gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle were either covered under the said Act prior to its amendment neither of 1994 nor even after its said amendment. Therefore, even relying on the finding of the Claims Tribunal, that the victim was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passengers, we have no other alternative than to hold in view of the above Supreme Court decision that the Insurance Company would not be liable for payment of any compensation to the claimant respondent for the death of the victim. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Asha Rani (supra) upon examination of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994 by which the expression ?injury to any person? was substituted by the expression ?injury to any person, including owner of the goods of his authorized representatives carried in the vehicle? has concluded that even if the widest interpretation is given to the expression ?to any person? as stood prior to the aforesaid amendment Act, 1994, it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of section 46 of the amendment Act of 1994, as held in the above decision are that it seeks to amend section 147 to include the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives carried in the vehicle for the purpose of liability under the insurance policy. It has also been observed therein that it is no doubt true that sometimes legislature amend the law by way of amplification or clarification of an inherent position which is there in 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 reason engrafted in the amendment provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult to construe that the expression ?including owner of the goods or his authorized representatives carried in the vehicle? which was added to the pre-existing expression ?injury to any person? is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. which was added to the pre-existing expression ?injury to any person? is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court even if we hold, on the basis of the evidence as adduced on behalf of the claimant-respondent and also by reversing the finding as made by the Claims Tribunal, that the victim was travelling in the offending vehicle as being the owner of the goods that were being carried in the same, we are precluded from holding that the Insurance Company would be liable for payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent as the accident had occurred on 1st July, 1993 that is prior to the 1994 amendment of the said Act. Thus, the second question is also answered in the negative. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same shall accordingly stand dismissed. ( 10 ) IT appears that the owner-appellant has already made a statutory deposit of Rs. 12,500/- with this Court pursuant to the order of this Court. The owner-appellant is accordingly directed to make the balance deposit of a sum of Rs. 12,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum form the date of filing of the claim petition till such deposit is made with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month from the date. The Registrar General upon receipt of such deposit will disburse both the amounts as above upon notice to the claimant-respondent No. 1 namely Sahanur Bewa, wife of the victim, immediately thereafter. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, as expeditiously as possible. S. Sen, J.- I agree. Appeal dismissed