R. K. RASTOGI, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals have been filed against two awards passed in Motor Accident Claim petition No. 233 of 1988. Laxmi Narain v. Balbodh Misra and Ors. , the former having been filed against the award dated 3. 9. 1994 in the aforesaid case and the latter against the award dated 29. 8. 1998 in the same case. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to both these appeals are that the claimant Laxmi Narain, (respondent no. 1 in both the appeals) had filed M. A. C. P. No. 233 of 1988 against the appellant (Opposite party No. 3 in the M. A. C. P.) and respondents No. 2 and 3 ( Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 In the m. A. C. P.) with these allegations that on 21. 2. 1988 he was going from Orai to Konch in Truck no. MBO 1765 owned by M/s Kataria Transport Corporation, opposite party No. 2. At about noon this truck collided with Bus No. UTK 2575 owned by Balbodh Misra, opposite party No. 1. Consequently, Laxmi Narain received injuries in this accident. His age was 26 years at that time and he was earning Rs. 700/- per month. He had to spend Rs. 15,000 - on his treatment. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 3,35,000- as compensation. ( 3 ) THE opposite party No. 1 Balbodh Misra filed a written statement in which he admitted the ownership of Bus No. UTK 2575. he pleaded that the bus was insured with New India Assurance company, opposite party No. 3, and on the date of accident, the bus was coming from the side of etah towards Orai which was being driven by Babu Khan who died in the above accident. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck No. MBO 1765. The income of the petitioner was not Rs. 700/- per month. The petitioner had not impleaded the insurer of the truck. ( 4 ) THE opposite party No. 2 M/s Kataria Transport Corporation also filed a written statement in which it admitted the ownership of Truck No. MBO 1765. It, however pleaded that the petition was time barred. The truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company at the time of accident and so the liability, if any, was to be borne by the Insurance Company. It, however pleaded that the petition was time barred. The truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company at the time of accident and so the liability, if any, was to be borne by the Insurance Company. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The truck was being driven by a licensed driver Indu Singh in cautious manner. The petitioner did not receive any injury in the accident and no amount was spent by him on his treatment. ( 5 ) THE New India Assurance Company, opposite parts No. 3 also filed a written statement in which it pleaded that particulars of the insurance policies had not been given and it was not admitted that the vehicles were insured No information of the accident was given to the insurance Company by the owner of the vehicles. The drivers of the vehicles did not have valid driving licence, so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount. The petitioner did not receive any injury in the accident and he did not earn Rs. 700/- per month. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING issues were framed in this case: (1) Whether the accident on 21. 2. 1988 was occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. UTK 2575 and Truck No. MBO 1765 by their drivers as alleged? If so, its effect? (2) Whether the drivers of Bus No. UTK 2575 and Truck No. MBO 1765 contributed negligence against each other resulting alleged accident? If so, its effect. (3) Whether the aforesaid both the vehicles were not insured at the time of accident? If so, its effect. (4) Whether the drivers of the vehicles were not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident? (5) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled? If so, from whom? ( 7 ) THE petitioner Laxmi Narain produced Ram Prakash, an eye witness of the accident as P. W. 1. He stated that the accident had taken place between the Truck No. MBO 1765 and Bus No. UTK 2575 resulting into injuries to Laxmi Narain. who was travelling in the truck. If so, from whom? ( 7 ) THE petitioner Laxmi Narain produced Ram Prakash, an eye witness of the accident as P. W. 1. He stated that the accident had taken place between the Truck No. MBO 1765 and Bus No. UTK 2575 resulting into injuries to Laxmi Narain. who was travelling in the truck. ( 8 ) LAXMI Narain examined himself as P. W. 2 and stated that on the date of accident he was travelling in Truck No. MBO 1765 carrying two tyres of tractor and the truck collided with Bus no. UTK 2575 which was coming from the opposite direction, and he received injuries in mis accident, and there was fracture of bone of his right leg. He was treated by Dr. D. K. Gupta of medical College, Jhansi. He had to incur a heavy amount on his treatment. He further stated that he was earning Rs. 700/- per month by doing agricultural work as he has got 40 Bighas of agricultural land and he was also having a tractor but after the accident he was not in a position to drive the tractor and he had to engage a driver for the tractor on the salary of Rs. 600/- per month. He further stated that he had appointed a servant on the salary of Rs. 400/- per month. ( 9 ) THE opposite party No. 1 Balbodh Misra examined his Mukhtar, Suresh Kumar as D. W. 1. Ho filed documents regarding registration of Bus No. UTK 2575, its fitness certificate, the receipt regarding deposit of tax as well as the route permit. He also filed insurance certificate of the vehicle (Bus) and driving licence of the driver. He further stated that the vehicle was being driven by the driver in a very cautious manner and there was no fault of the bus driver. The truck was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and the accident had taken place due to negligence of the truck driver. ( 10 ) THE opposite party No. 2 who is owner of the truck did not appear at the time of the final hearing of the case and so the case was heard exparte against him. The Insurance Company (opposite party No. 3) was present at the time of hearing and had cross examined the petitioners witnesses. However, no defence witness was produced by it. The Insurance Company (opposite party No. 3) was present at the time of hearing and had cross examined the petitioners witnesses. However, no defence witness was produced by it. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid Motor Accident Claim Petition was originally decided by Sri Kripa Shanker, then Special Judge (E. C. Act), Jalaun at Orai vide his judgment dated 3. 9. 1994 in which he held on issues No. 1 and 2 that both the bus and the truck drivers were liable for the accident. He held on issue No. 3 that the bus was insured with the New India Assurance Company but it was not proved that the truck was also insured. He held on issue No. 4 that driver of the bus had a valid driving licence with him. He held on issue No. 5 that the petitioner had spent Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment He further held that the petitioner Laxmi Narain had employed a servant on the salary of Rs. 400/- per month to do agricultural work. He further held that age of the petitioner Laxmi narain was 26 years and his normal expectancy of life was 70 years and so he was entitled to recover the amount which he was spending on employment of the servant, and which comes to rs. 2,11,200/- at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per year for a period of 44 years. Thus the total pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 2,26,200/- and he was also entitled to non pecuniary loss at the rate of 10% on the above amount which came to Rs. 22,620/-, so the entire compensation came to be Rs. 2,48,820/ -. He further held that out of this amount its 50%, which comes to Rs. 1,24,410/-, was to be borne by the Insurance Company for the bus which was insured with it and the remaining half amount of Rs. 1,24,410/- was to be borne by the opposite party No. 2 M/s Kataria Transport corporation. He, therefore, decreed the claim petition for recovery of Rs. 2,48,8207- and ordered that out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1. 24,410/- was to be borne by the New India Assurance company and the remaining amount of Rs. 1. 24,410/- was to be borne by M/s Kataria Transport corporation. He, therefore, decreed the claim petition for recovery of Rs. 2,48,8207- and ordered that out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1. 24,410/- was to be borne by the New India Assurance company and the remaining amount of Rs. 1. 24,410/- was to be borne by M/s Kataria Transport corporation. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED with the above judgment and award M/s New India Assurance Company filed f. A. F. O. No. 6 of 1995 which was a defective appeal and after removal of the defect it was registered as F. A. F. O. No. 2063 of 2003. ( 13 ) M/s Kataria Transport Corporation moved an application for setting aside the above award which was passed exparte against it. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1995. The presiding Officer of the court, however, rejected this application vide his order dated 6. 4. 1996. Aggrieved with that order M/s Kataria Transport Corportation filed F. A. F. O. No. ?. 49 of 1996. The above appeal was heard and decided by this Court vide order dated 24. 7. 1996. It may be mentioned that M/s Kataria Transport Corporation had also insured the truck with same insurance company, i. e. New India Assurance Company. This Court allowed the appeal and provided an opportunity to M/s Kataria Transport Corporation to produce evidence on the points whether the truck was insured with the above company or not and whether the Insurance company was liable to indemnify M/s Kataria Transport Corporation or not. The case was remanded for decision on these points only. ( 14 ) AFTER remand this case was heard and decided by Shri V. K. Srivastava, III Addl. District judge, Orai who vide his judgment dated 29. 8. 1998 held that since the truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company, the company was liable to hear the amount of Rs. 1,24,410/which was originally awarded against M/s Kataria Transport Corporation. Aggrieved with that judgment and order New India Assurance Company filed F. A. F. O. No. 6 of 1998 which was a defective appeal and after removal of the defect it was registered as F. A. F. O. No. 2064 of 2003. ( 15 ) WE have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. Aggrieved with that judgment and order New India Assurance Company filed F. A. F. O. No. 6 of 1998 which was a defective appeal and after removal of the defect it was registered as F. A. F. O. No. 2064 of 2003. ( 15 ) WE have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties at the very outset submitted that in the present case the Insurance Company had not obtained any permission under the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the petition on those pleas which are available to the owner of the vehicle. They contended that under these circumstances the appeals filed by the New India Assurance company were not maintainable ever? if the owner of the vehicle had not filed any appeal. In this connection they cited before us a ruling of the Apex Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. 2002 ACJ1950 , AIR2002 sc 3350 , 2002 (6 )ALD1 (SC ), 2002 (6 )ALT43 (SC ), 2003 (1 )AWC23 (SC ), 2002 (3)BLJR2143 , (2003 )95 CALLT157 (SC ), [2002 ]112 Compcas257 (SC ), [2002 (3 )JCR201 (SC )], JT2002 (7 )SC 251 , (2003 )1 MLJ11 (SC ), (2002 )3 PLR621 , RLW2003 (1 )SC 25 , 2002 (6 )SCALE569 , (2002 )7 SCC456. We have carefully gone through this ruling. The point under issue in the above case was as under: " Where an insured has not preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act) against an award given by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), is it open to the insurer to prefer an appeal against the award by the Tribunal questioning the quantum of the compensation, as well as finding as regards the negligence of the offending vehicle. " ( 17 ) IT was held in the above ruling that even in such a case where the insured has not filed any appeal against the award it is not open to the Insurance Company to file an appeal questioning the quantum of the compensation as well as the finding with regard to negligence of the offending vehicle. " ( 17 ) IT was held in the above ruling that even in such a case where the insured has not filed any appeal against the award it is not open to the Insurance Company to file an appeal questioning the quantum of the compensation as well as the finding with regard to negligence of the offending vehicle. ( 18 ) IT is to be seen that in the present case the New India Assurance Company had filed two appeals, F. A. F. O. No. 2063 of 2003 is against the award dated 3. 9. 1994 whereby the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,48,820/-; and the other F. A. F. O. No. 2064 of 2003 is against the award dated 29. 8. 1998 whereby the Insurance Company has been ordered to bear the liability of the truck owner M/s Kataria transport Corporation. Let us now consider the effect of the above ruling on both these appeals. ( 19 ) SO far as F. A. F. O. No. 2063 of 2003 is concerned, it is against the award dated 3. 9. 1994 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,48,820/- has been awarded to the claimant. It is to be seen that in the judgment under appeal both the Bus driver and the Truck driver were held liable for the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of their vehicles, and then on the basis of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,48,820/- as compensation. The Tribunal further ordered that the appellant Company ( New India Assurance Company )shall be responsible to bear the liability of the Bus owner which was assessed to be 50% of the total amount awarded in the case. The Insurance Company has. not disputed its liability to indemnify the Bus owner. On the other hand, the pleas taken by the appellant Company in this appeal are that the Presiding Officer of the court has adopted a wrong multiplier for determination of the compensation and has also awarded excessive amount as compensation. These pleas regarding quantum of compensation are not available to the Insurance Company in view of Section 110c (2) of the old Motor vehicles Act which was applicable when the accident had taken place. The same bar has been contained under Section 170 of the new Motor Vehicles act. These pleas regarding quantum of compensation are not available to the Insurance Company in view of Section 110c (2) of the old Motor vehicles Act which was applicable when the accident had taken place. The same bar has been contained under Section 170 of the new Motor Vehicles act. As such, F. A. F. O. No. 2063 of 2003. as it challenges the amount of compensation, is not maintainable, and so it is liable to be dismissed. ( 20 ) NOW we take up the maintainability of F. A. F. O. No. 2c64 of 2003. In this appeal the insurance Company has challenged its liability to indemnify the owner of the Truck on the ground that the insurance policy did not cover the liability to indemnify the owner in respect of the -loss to passengers travelling in the Truck as the Truck owner had not paid any extra premium for the same and so the Tribunal has illegally passed an order directing it to bear the liability of the Truck owner M/s Kataria Transport Corporation. This legal plea of challenging its liability to pay is available to the Insurance Company under Section 96 of the old Motor vehicles Act as well as under Section 149 of the new Motor Vehicles Act and so the appeal filed by the Insurance Company raising the above plea is maintainable. Hence, now we proceed to decide this appeal on merits. ( 21 ) THE Insurance Company has filed a carbon copy of the insurance policy issued by it for insurance of the truck, which is paper No. 9 Kha/87. At page 4 of this policy under the head "schedule of Premium" in the column of "liability to Public Risk" there is entry of payment of rs. 240/- to cover liability to the risk. Then there is a provision for payment of additional amount under the following head: "add: for L. L. to authorized non-fare paying passengers as per end IMT. 14 (b)Limit any one passenger Rs. . . . Limit any one Acct. Rs. . . . " no premium was paid in this case to cover this risk of the additional liability. Then there is a provision "add for L. L. to paid driver and/or Cleaner as per IND IMT 16" and a sum of Rs. 24/has been paid for covering this risk to the paid driver. . Limit any one Acct. Rs. . . . " no premium was paid in this case to cover this risk of the additional liability. Then there is a provision "add for L. L. to paid driver and/or Cleaner as per IND IMT 16" and a sum of Rs. 24/has been paid for covering this risk to the paid driver. It "was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this way no premium was paid by the owner of the truck to cover the risk of passengers and so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount for the loss caused to the passenger travelling in the truck. ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant as well as for M/s Kataria Transport Corporation submitted before us that the Insurance Company was liable to bear the liability of the truck owner also. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that at the most the insurance Company could recover the amount from the truck owner after making payment to the claimant, and so far as the rights of the claimant are concerned, they are protected. ( 23 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant also cited before us a ruling of Honble Apex Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. 2004 ACJ428 , air2004 SC 1340 , 2004 (1 )ALD98 (SC ), 2004 (2 )ALT33 (SC ), 2004 (1 )AWC565 (SC ), (SCSuppl )2004 (4 )CHN134 , [2004 ]118 Compcas435 (SC ), 2004 (1 )CTC210 , (2004 )2 glr1071 , JT2004 (1 )SC 15 , 2004 (1 )KLT938 (SC ), 2004 (2 )Mhlj372 , (2004 )1 MLJ127 (SC ), 2004 (1 )SCALE124 , (2004 )2 SCC1 , 2004 (1 )UJ617 (SC ). This case is directly on the point of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles and in this case, the position of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle under the old Motor Vehicles Act as well as the new Motor Vehicles act and in view of the amendment of Section 147 (1) (b) of the new Motor Vehicles Act, which had taken place in the year 1994, was considered, in this case the victim who was returning in the truck from a marriage ceremony had died as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the goods vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. The tribunal relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in new India Assurance Co. v. Satpal singh 2000 ACJ1 , AIR2000 SC 235 , 2000 (1 )BLJR1 , [2000 ]99 compcas258 (SC ), 2000 (1 )CTC370 , JT1999 (9 )SC 416 , (2000 )1 MLJ115 (SC ), 2000 (2)MPHT340 , (2000 )124 PLR464 , RLW2000 (1 )SC 98 , 1999 (7 )SCALE300 , (2000 )1 scc237 , [1999 ]supp5 SCR149 accepted the claim of the petitioner and rejected the contention of the appellant Insurance company that the vehicle concerned being goods vehicle, it would not have to incur any liability with respect to passengers transported in the vehicle. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation which was to be paid by the Insurance Company. On appeal the High court upheld the verdict of the Claims Tribunal. Aggrieved with that order the national Insurance Company filed an appeal before Honble Supreme Court. ( 24 ) THE Honble Supreme Court observed in its judgment that ruling of Satpal Singhs case has been subsequently reversed by a three Judges Bench of the Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223 , which was followed in the subsequent ruling in the case of oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy 2003 ACJ468 , AIR2003 SC 1009 , 2003 (2 )ALD133 (SC ), 2003 (5 )ALT6 (SC ), [2003 ]113 Compcas532 (SC ), (2003 )2 GLR1608 , JT2003 (1 )SC 372 , 2003 (1 )KLT583 (SC ), (2003 )2 MLJ115 (SC), 2003 (1 )SCALE441 , (2003 )2 SCC339 , 2003 (1 )UJ348 (SC ). Thereafter their Lordships considered the effect of amendment of Section 147 of the Motor vehicles Act as amended in the year 1994 whereby it was provided that any liability which may be incurred in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place is to be borne by the Insurance company. It was, however, held that this amendment did not cover the case of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle. It was, however, held that this amendment did not cover the case of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle. Thereafter their Lordships observed in para 13 of the judgment as under: "it is pertinent to note that a statutory liability enjoined upon an owner of the vehicle to compulsorily insure it so as to cover the liability in respect of a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment in terms of proviso (ii) appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act does not occur in Section 147 of the 1988 Act. The changes effected in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act as regards definitions of "goods vehicle" "public service vehicle" and "stage carriage" have also a bearing on the subject in as much as the concept of any goods carriage carrying any passenger or any other person was not contemplated. " ( 25 ) THE legal position was summed up by their Lordships in following three concluding paragraphs No. 19, 20 and 21, which are as under : "19: In Asha Rani it has been noticed that sub clause (i) of clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 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 the vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger- carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of me 1994 amendment would only cover at third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorized representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. ( 26 ) FT 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 authorized representative remains the same. ( 26 ) FT 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 authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized 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 was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. ( 27 ) 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. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani. 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 the 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 buy 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 in as much as ran be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding. " ( 28 ) THE legal position in this way is that the gratuitous passengers are not covered by the insurance Policy unless and until any extra premium has been paid to cover the risk, but as observed by the Apex Court in para 21 of the judgment this legal position shall have prospective effect only. In old cases (the present case is also an old case of the year 1988) the insurer is liable to satisfy the claim of such gratuitous passengers. The insurer is. however, entitled to realize the amount from the owner of the vehicle and for that purpose no separate proceedings are necessary and the Insurance Company can realize the amount paid by it to meet the claim of the gratuitous passenger by moving a simple application before the executing court for. recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle. ( 29 ) THUS, the position in the present case is that the claimant is entitled to recover the balance amount payable by the Truck owner from its insurer, which is New India Assurance Company, the present appellant. However, the New India Assurance Company shall be entitled to recover this amount from the Truck owner, i. e. M/s Kataria Transport Corporation because no extra premium had been paid by M/s Kataria Transport Corporation to New India Assurance company to cover the risk of such passengers and this amount can be realized by the Insurance company by moving an application for recovery of the amount in the executing court. ( 30 ) F. A. F. O. No. 2063 of 2003 is, therefore, dismissed being non maintainable, F. A. F. O. No. 2064 of 2003 is partly allowed and the order of the Claims Tribunal allowing the claimant respondent No. 1 to realize the amount of Rs. 1,24,410/ -. ( 30 ) F. A. F. O. No. 2063 of 2003 is, therefore, dismissed being non maintainable, F. A. F. O. No. 2064 of 2003 is partly allowed and the order of the Claims Tribunal allowing the claimant respondent No. 1 to realize the amount of Rs. 1,24,410/ -. proportionate costs and interest payable by M/s Kataria Transport Corporation in the total liability of Rs. 2,48,820 -from the appellant insurance Company is maintained, but the appellant is permitted to realize this amount from M/s kataria Transport Corporation by filing execution against it and the award of the Claims tribunal is modified to this extent only. In both the appeals the parties shall bear their own costs. .