JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Judgment dated 10.12.1999 by learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No.675 of 1996 is under challenge. 2. Respondents in this A.H.O. were the claimants in Misc. (A) Case No.234 of 1994 (D) of the Court of 2nd M.A.C.T., North¬ern Division, Sambalpur. They filed that application under Sec¬tion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) with the contention that on 18/19.07.1994 Late Tankadhar Sahoo (son of claimant No.1, husband of claimant No.2 and father of claimant Nos. 3 to 5) while travelling in a goods vehicle, i.e., a truck bearing Registration No. OR-15-A-4731, suffered death due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck and the accident thereof. The owner of the truck, respondent No.6 in this A.H.O. did not contest the case and remained ex parte. The appellant as opposite party No.2 contested the claim and inter alia stated that it has no liability to pay compensation as the deceased was owner of the goods moving in the truck. The Claims Tribunal decided that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and therefore the claimants are entitled to compen¬sation. he quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 72,000/- (rupees seventy two thousand). The Claims Tribunal exonerated the appellant from payment of compensation on the aforesaid defence and saddled the liability with the owner of the vehicle. The claimants challenged that award in Misc. Appeal No.675 of 1996 with the prayer to enhance the quantum of compensation and to saddle the liability with the appellant. Owner of the truck was made respondent No.1 in that Misc. Appeal. There is nothing on record to indicate that after his appearance in the appeal, the owner of the truck either filed a cross-objection or preferred any separate appeal challenging to the award made on 12.06.1996 by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Northern Division, Sambalpur. However, it appears from the impugned judgment that the said owner/respondent participated in the hearing of the Misc. Appeal. 3. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge deliv¬ered the impugned judgment on 10.12.1999. Learned Single Judge upheld the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver and liability for payment of compensation. Learned Single Judge disputed to the factual finding regarding the quantum of income of the deceased and he determined the compensa¬tion accordingly at Rs.1,90,000/- (rupees one lakh ninety thou¬sand). Learned Single Judge upheld the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver and liability for payment of compensation. Learned Single Judge disputed to the factual finding regarding the quantum of income of the deceased and he determined the compensa¬tion accordingly at Rs.1,90,000/- (rupees one lakh ninety thou¬sand). Learned Single Judge considered the question of liability between the owner of the truck and the insurer, and referring to the decision in the case of The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Divisional Office v. Jasoda Mohanta and others, 1996 (I) OLR- 217, held that in view of provision in Section 147 of the Act the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and the owner is protected because of validity of the Insurance Policy. 4. Appellant in the A.H.O. urged before us the solitary point that in view of the settled position of law and the provi¬sion in Section 147 of the Act before its amendment in 1994, in such a case the owner of the goods moving in a goods vehicle is not entitled to compensation for the death or injury sustained by him. In that respect, he relied on the cases of New India Assur¬ance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others, 2002 AIR SCW 5259 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and others WITH Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jogi Subbamma and others, 2003 AIR SCW 513. Respondents, however, argued that in view of the statutory provision in Section 147 of the Act and the decision in the case of Jasoda Mohanta (supra) the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 5. After going through the facts involved, the judgments delivered by the Claims Tribunal and learned Single Judge, the provision of law and the above noted citations, we do not feel it necessary to make a further analysis of the position of law in view of the settled position of law by the Apex Court in the above cited two decisions. It may be noted that the contrary view expressed by this Court in the case of Jasoda Mohanta (supra) has lost its force because of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court. 6. It may be noted that the contrary view expressed by this Court in the case of Jasoda Mohanta (supra) has lost its force because of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court. 6. In the case of Asha Rani (supra), a three-Judge-Bench of the Apex Court considered such a question with the opinion that the period of accident is relevant to make applicable the provision of law in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or Section 147 of the Act 1988 prior to its amendment by Act 54 of 1994 which came into effect from 14.11.1994 and Section 147 after that amendment. In this case, the accident having occurred on 18/19.07.1994, therefore the provision of law under Section 147 of the Act prior to the 1994 amendment is applicable. The rele¬vant provision from Section 147 (1)(b)(i) is quoted hereunder for ready reference. “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which - (a) xx xx xx (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person (including 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.” The underlined portion in the above quoted Clause (i) is the addition in that provision by virtue of amendment in 1994. Taking that legal position into consideration, in the case of Asha Rani (supra) the Apex Court propounded that, “it is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an acci¬dent and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.” (from paragraph-9 at page 5267) A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of De¬vireddy Konda Reddy (supra). Their Lordships have observed that : “11. Their Lordships have observed that : “11. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passen¬ger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.” 7. The above being the position of law flowing from the statute and rulings of the Apex Court, therefore, the impugned judgment in the context of saddling liability with the United India Assurance Co. Ltd.- the appellant, is non-sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the direction for payment of compen¬sation by the appellant - Insurance Company is set aside. Since the finding relating to enhancement of quantum of compensation and mode of distribution amongst the claimants is not challenged, we do not express opinion in that respect in any manner, but now the liability for payment of compensation is on the owner of the truck. The A.H.O. is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation so far this forum is concerned. A. K. SAMANTRAY, J. I agree. AHO allowed.