Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2003 in MCOP.No.947 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Addl. Suborinate Judge) at Tiruchirapalli.) P.K. Misra, J. The present appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company against the award passed in MCOP.No.947 of 2001 dated 4.8.2003. 2. Notice of Motion was issued to the respondents indicating that the appeal would be disposed of at the stage of admission. Thereafter, the matter has been placed for disposal. 3. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.68,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident which occurred on 19.11.2000, caused by the lorry belonging to the present Respondent No.2. 4. There is no dispute that such vehicle was insured with the present appellant at the time of accident and the claimant was travelling in the lorry along with the goods transported as a representative of the owner of the goods. The lorry was being driven at an uncontrollable speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a traffic automatic signal, as a result of which the claimant sustained several injuries including fracture. The claimant was treated in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Tiruchy. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Considering the nature of injuries and other relevant aspects, the Tribunal awarded payment of Rs.68,000/- as compensation by both the respondents, i.e. the owner as well as the Insurer. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurer. 5. The main contention raised by the Insurer is to the effect that liability relating to a non-fare paying passenger was not covered under the Insurance Policy. 6. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence on record, particularly, the claimant himself came to the conclusion that he was travelling in the lorry as a representative of the owner of the goods and fastened the liability with the insurer. The Tribunal also concluded that additional premium had been paid by the owner for the non-fare paying passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurer/ appellant contended that the latter finding of the Tribunal is without any basis and in fact no additional premium had been paid for the non-fare paying passenger. 8. The Tribunal also concluded that additional premium had been paid by the owner for the non-fare paying passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurer/ appellant contended that the latter finding of the Tribunal is without any basis and in fact no additional premium had been paid for the non-fare paying passenger. 8. Even assuming that such submission of the appellant is correct, we do not think that the conclusion of the Tribunal regarding liability of the Insurance Company can be said to be illegal or erroneous in view of the clear finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was travelling in the lorry as a representative of the owner of the goods. 9. Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act relates to the insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Section 147 lays down the requirement of the policies and limits of liability. The relevant provision of such Section 147, for the present purpose, is extracted hereunder: - "147. Requirement 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) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (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 authorised 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; (ii) ... " 10. The aforesaid provision contains an important change brought in by way of amendment by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. After the said amendment, the insurer is required to insure the liability in respect of the death or bodily injury to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. This being the statutory requirement, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company has no liability in respect of the claimant, who is found to be the authorised representative of the goods travelling in the vehicle along with the goods. 11. This being the statutory requirement, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company has no liability in respect of the claimant, who is found to be the authorised representative of the goods travelling in the vehicle along with the goods. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that there is no evidence on record to show that additional premium had been paid to cover the liability in respect of the owner of the goods or in respect of the representative of the owner of the goods. 12. We do not think that such submission made by the appellant can be countenanced. Whether any additional premium is paid to cover the liability in respect of the owner of the vehicle or the authorised representative is immaterial in view of the specific requirement contained in Section 147. Every Insurance Policy is to satisfy the requirement indicated in Section 147. Whether premium is payable or not is a matter between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. In order to comply with the requirement of Chapter XI, such condition has to be or deemed to have been incorporated the conditions indicated in Section 147. Therefore, whether any additional premium has been paid or not, is immaterial. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the claimant had not paid any fare, and therefore, there is no liability. 14. Such submission is again without any force. The representative of the owner of the goods is required to be covered, whether such person has paid fare or not. 15. In view of the above discussion, the main contention raised by the appellant is without any substance. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also raised the question of quantum. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the Claimant and the period during which the treatment continued, we do not think that the award of Rs.68,000/- is grossly excessive warranting any interference. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP. No.2123 of 2005 is closed.