( 1 ) THE New India Assurance Company limited, represented by its Branch Manager, guntur filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award and decree dated 31-12-2001 in OP. No. 843 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Judge, guntur. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows: on 17-09-1998, the deceased, Mr. Syed jabbi along with his friend, Mr. Sk. Sadik were returning from Tenali after conveying death message to their relatives on scooter bearing Regn. No. ATG-9801 and by the time when they reached Uppu Godown at apseb Power Station, Ponnur Road, a lorry bearing Regn. No. ATU-4152 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the said scooter and due to which, Mr. Syed Jabbi fell down, sustained head injury and also grievous injuries on all over the body and died instantaneously and the pillion rider Shaik Sadik received grievous injuries. A case in Cr. No. 302/98 was registered under Section 337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. ( 3 ) BY the date of death, Mr. Syed Jabbi was aged about 26 years, working as goldsmith and earning Rs. 3000. 00 per month. Due to untimely death, the petitioners lost their dependency and earnings. Thus, the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 towards compensation including rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing regn. No. ATU-4152 belonging to the first respondent, which is insured with the second respondent. Hence, the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount. ( 4 ) THE first respondent, who is the owner of the offending lorry remained ex-parte and did not file his counter. ( 5 ) THE second respondent filed its counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, the age and income of the deceased, Mr. Syed Jabbi. The second respondent contends that the deceased was not possessing valid driving licence to drive the scooter, as such, the terms and conditions of the Policy is violated. Petitioners are therefore not entitled to claim compensation from the second respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Syed Jabbi. The second respondent contends that the deceased was not possessing valid driving licence to drive the scooter, as such, the terms and conditions of the Policy is violated. Petitioners are therefore not entitled to claim compensation from the second respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of lorry bearing Regn. No. ATU-4152 or scooter bearing regn. No. ATG-9801? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? ( 7 ) TO substantiate the case, Petitioners examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked certified copies of Ex. A-1 FIR in Cr. No. 302/98 of Lalapet (Lando) Police Station, ex. A-2 Post-mortem Examination Report and Ex. A-3 Certificate for recognition as a goldsmith issued by Superintendent, customs and Excise Range, Guntur. On behalf of Respondents, R. Ws. 1 and 2 who are Administrative Officer of Insurance company and Junior Assistant in RTO office were examined and marked Ex. B-1 copy of Insurance Policy, Ex. B-2 certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector s Report, ex. B-3 validity certificate issued by RTO vijayawada and Ex. B-4 Grant of issue of driving licence by RTA Vijayawada. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the oral and documentary evidence placed on either side, the Tribunal answered the first issue in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry bearing Regn. No. ATU-4152. With regard to issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that there is no other evidence in respect of income of the deceased, except Ex. A-3 certificate which goes to show that the deceased was working as goldsmith, therefore, the annual income of the deceased was determined at rs. 15,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and assessed the annual contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs. 10,000. 00. By the date of accident, the deceased was 31 years old, the appropriate multiplier was taken as 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,70,000. 00 (Rs. 10,000/- x 17 ). The Tribunal also awarded rs. 10,000. 00. By the date of accident, the deceased was 31 years old, the appropriate multiplier was taken as 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,70,000. 00 (Rs. 10,000/- x 17 ). The Tribunal also awarded rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs. 5,000. 00 towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000. 00 towards funeral expenses. In all the claimants were awarded Rs. 1,92,000. 00 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. Therefore, the Tribunal answered the second issue in favour of the claimants and againt the respondents and thereafter answered the third issue by appropriating the compensation amount among the claimants. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the New India assurance Company Limited came in appeal contending firstly that the Tribunal failed to see that the driving licence furnished is of one Mr. Ch. Anjaiah but not of the dirver involved in the accident; namely, mr. Shaik Hussain. Secondly, the Tribunal failed to see that the owner is liable and there is no order at least to get any reimbursement from the owner of the vehicle. Thirdly, the Tribunal failed to consider the criminal court record filed by the claimants with regard to the vehicle driven by the driver of lorry without having any valid driving licence and Insurance Company is not liable according to the documents by the claimants. Fourthly, the Tribunal failed to consider that the Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal ought not to have given any scope muchless to a unlicenced driver to drive the vehicle. Fifthly, there is no joint and several liability on the part of the Insurance company. Sixthly, the Tribunal failed to consider the oral evidence adduced by r. Ws. 1 and 2. Lastly, the terms and conditions of Ex. B-1 copy of Insurance policy was not considered. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a judgment in National insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur wherein the Apex Court held at paras 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22. 17. By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle". ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a judgment in National insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur wherein the Apex Court held at paras 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22. 17. By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle". The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words any person occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were traveling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out the amendment inasmuch as the expression any person contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of goods or his authorised representatives besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. 19. In Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), it has been noticed that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 147 of the 1988 Act speaks of 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 a third party caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risk of the passengers traveling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. 20. It is therefore, manifest that inspite 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 authorised representative remains the same. 20. It is therefore, manifest that inspite 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 authorised representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorised representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position, which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC ). The said decision has been over ruled only in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC ). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding. 22. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals are partly allowed to the aforementioned extent and subject to the directions aforementioned. But there shall be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) NOW the only point raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the new India Assurance Company, Mr. Kota subba Rao, is that though it was not mentioned in the written statement that the deceased was not having driving licence to drive the scooter but during the course of trial of claim-petititon when objection was raised to the effect that the driver of the lorry bearing Regn. No. ATU-4152 was not having valid driving licence, which was corroborated by R. W. 1, who is working as administrative Officer, in the second respondent organization. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the above objection, it can be inferred that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of Ex. B-1 Insurance policy by way of engaging the driver who does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. To corroborate the evidence of R. W. 2, Exs. B-2, B-3 and b-4 were filed, which disclose the fact that the licence was issued in the name of mr. Ch. Anjaiah, whereas Mr. Shaik Hussain is the driver who drove the lorry bearing regn. No. ATU-4152 on the fateful day at the relevant time of accident. But the learned tribunal has rejected the same holding that no ground was taken in the written statement. Moreover, the Tribunal expressed doubt as to how the Respondent no. 2 obtained particulars of driving licence of the driver of offending lorry. The Tribunal held that the particulars mentioned in ex. But the learned tribunal has rejected the same holding that no ground was taken in the written statement. Moreover, the Tribunal expressed doubt as to how the Respondent no. 2 obtained particulars of driving licence of the driver of offending lorry. The Tribunal held that the particulars mentioned in ex. B-2 Motor Vehicle Inspector s report, respondent No. 2 collected particulars with regard to driving licence and it is not known on what basis Ex. B-2 particulars of driving licence of driver of lorry are mentioned by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Therefore, the Tribunal has not placed reliance on Exs. B-2 to B-4, holding that Respondent No. 2. is liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry. Hence, the Tribunal held that Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending lorry and Respondent No. 2 is the Insurer of the said lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. ( 11 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as mr. G. Yadagiri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-claimants. ( 12 ) ON consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it can be seen that at the stage of evidence, respondent No. 2 without any pleading objected that the driver of lorry bearing regn. No. ATU-4152 was not having valid driving licence and this was spoken to by r. W. 1 Administrative Officer of Insurance company in his evidence that they addressed a letter to RTO Vijayawada for verification of driving licence of Mr. Shaik hussain, the driver of offending lorry. The rto informed them that the particulars of driving licence furnished in the present case relates to one Mr. Ch. Anjaiah but not mr. Shaik Hussain. Hence, Mr. Shaik hussain was not having driving licence according to Ex. B-3 certificate issued by rto Vijayawada , which goes to show that the driving licence is in the name mr. Ch. Anjaiah but not Mr. Shaik Hussain. Further as per records, Ex. B-4 shows that the computerised particulars of driving licence No. 12763/85, which was issued on 28-6-1985 is in the name of Mr. Ch. Anjaiah for driving non-transport light motor vehicles. Ch. Anjaiah but not Mr. Shaik Hussain. Further as per records, Ex. B-4 shows that the computerised particulars of driving licence No. 12763/85, which was issued on 28-6-1985 is in the name of Mr. Ch. Anjaiah for driving non-transport light motor vehicles. But the Tribunal had not accepted the said plea firstly on the ground that in the counter, respondent No. 2 has specifically not taken the said plea with regard to the driver of the offending lorry bearing Regn. No. ATU-4152 was not having valid driving licence; secondly, it is not known as to how the respondet No. 2 obtained particulars of driving licence of the driver of the offending lorry. The Tribunal held that the particulars mentioned in Ex. B-2 MV Inspector s report, respondent No. 2 collected particulars with regard to driving licence and it is not known on what basis Ex. B-2 particulars of driving licence of driver of lorry are mentioned by the m. V. Inspector. Therefore, the Tribunal has not placed reliance on Exs. B-2 to B-4, holding that Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending lorry and Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the said lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. ( 13 ) IT is needless to observe that the rejection of the aforesaid plea of the appellant is perverse and erroneous. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte in the OP and notice was issued in cmp No. 23481 of 2002 seeking to condone the delay of 163 days in filing the appeal. After hearing both sides, this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Now in view of the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. Though the plea was (sic. not) taken in the written statement but during the course of arguments, this issue was raised but unfortunately the first respondent remained ex-parte. After hearing both sides, this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Now in view of the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. Though the plea was (sic. not) taken in the written statement but during the course of arguments, this issue was raised but unfortunately the first respondent remained ex-parte. Therefore, on the very face of record, it is not proper on the part of the tribunal to reject the plea of the appellant by holding that it is alien to the Tribunal to believe that on what basis Ex. B-2 particulars of driving licence of driver of lorry are mentioned by the M. V. Inspector. While relying on the judgment of the Apex Court stated supra-1, it is thus clear that the preponderance of probabilities lie in favour of the appellant, as the terms and conditions of ex. B-1 Insurance Policy were violated and the liability can be fastened on the insured. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that initially the appellant has deposited Rs. 25,000. 00 and the balance amount of compensation has to be deposited. In those circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court in Satpal Singh s case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC) which has been overruled in Asha Rani s case 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), the appellant is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the insured-owner of the offending vehicle in terms of the settled position of law laid down in the decision referred supra-1. ( 14 ) WITH the above direction, the appeal is allowed. But there shall be no order as to costs.