JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The National Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with Section 173 of the said Act of 1988 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th July, 1991 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Southern Division), Camp-Jeypore in MJC 32 of 1983. 2. Admittedly, a claim application was filed under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 by the legal heirs of deceased Bitu Khora claiming a compensation of Rs. 75,000.00. It was stated that Bitu Khora was a passenger in a tractor bearing No. ORK 5481 belonging to present respondent No. 5 and he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 6.6.1983 when the said tractor capsised. 3. After receiving notice, the respondent-owner of the tractor appeared and denied all the allegations made by the claimants. It was averred by him that in spite of protest of the driver the deceased forcefully got into the trailer of the tractor and he was never a passenger in the tractor for hire or reward. The Insurance Company also in its written statement denied the averments made by the claimants and disowned its liability to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed three issues. In order to substan¬tiate their respective cases, the claimants examined one witness and exhibited five documents; while the respondents neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering the age, the earning capacity of the deceased and other factors, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 54,000.00 with 6% interest thereon from the date of the claim application, 30.8.1983 till realisation. It was further ordered that if the aforesaid compensation amount was not paid to the claimants within three months of the judgment, the claimants would be entitled to penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. 5. The contention of the Insurance Company is that as the tractor was a goods vehicle, a passenger travelling in it either on hire or gratis is not covered under the insurance policy. 5. The contention of the Insurance Company is that as the tractor was a goods vehicle, a passenger travelling in it either on hire or gratis is not covered under the insurance policy. As admittedly the deceased was a passenger in the tractor and the appellant-Insurance Company is therefore not liable to pay any compensation and it is the owner of the tractor who is liable to pay the same. 6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the tractor, at the other hand submitted that the accident took place in the year 1983 and in consonance with the M.V.Act preva¬lent at the relevant time the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation and it is immaterial whether the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was a goods vehicle or a passenger vehicle. Learned counsel for the claimants reiterated the stand taken by Mr. Rath. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. In the case of Orien¬tal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1009 , the Supreme Court observed as follows : “The difference in the language of 'goods vehicle' as appearing in the old Act and 'good carriage' in the Act is significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression 'in addition to passengers' as contained in definition of 'goods vehicle' in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used in 'goods carriage' is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) to the proviso appended to S. 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even S. 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘W.C. Act’). The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘W.C. Act’). There is no reference to any passenger in ‘goods vehicle'" In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the inevitable conclusion is that even under the old Act the insurer had no liability. The same view was expressed in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2002) 8 Supreme 54. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the principles laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, AIR 2000 SC 235 , were not correctly decided. This being the position of law as on date, the conclu¬sion arrived at by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor cannot be sustained. The said direction is thus set aside. 8. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, after going through the materials available, and in a spirit of Lok Adalat, I find that the compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,000.00 is a little on higher side. There is no material, much less any cogent evidence either oral or documentary, with regard to income of the deceased. That apart, the specific case advanced by the owner is that the deceased forcefully climbed the trailer of the tractor in spite of protest by the driver. On a cumulative assessment of the materials available, I feel that it would be just, proper and equitable to award a compensation of Rs. 45,000.00 with interest at the rate of 6% thereon from the date of application, i.e. 30.8.1983 till realisation, payable by the owner of the tractor. 9. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned judg¬ment of the Tribunal, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Par¬ties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.