Judgment :- Denesan, J. Does the law require that to avail the benefit of clause (b) (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the owner of the goods or his authorised representative who dies or sustains bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place while traveling as passenger in a goods carriage, should be shown to shown to accompany the goods, at the time of the accident? In other words, does the statute require that not only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative but the goods also should be carried simultaneously in the vehicle which gets involved in a motor accident causing death or bodily injury to that passenger? 2. The above issue has come up for consideration in this appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurer in O.P. (MV)No.2484/99 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. It is admitted case that the 1st respondent-claimant was traveling in a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8/M 8568 driven by the 2nd respondent, along Choondal Guruvayur public road from south to north on 13-8-1999. The 1st respondent had hired that vehicle for the purpose of bringing coconuts from Thalakkottukara to Orumanayur. He was sitting on the left side of the driver in the above goods carriage. When the vehicle reached Kandanchira, at about 11.15 a.m., it capsized due to the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent sustained serious injuries including fracture of both bones in the accident. 3. It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. According to the 1st respondent, he was traveling in the vehicle as the authorised representative of the owner of the coconuts to be loaded and transported from Thalakkottukara. The Tribunal placing reliance on the oral evidence of the 1st respondent who was examined as P.W.1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A9 on his side found that the 1st respondent sustained injuries due to the negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. After quantifying the compensation due to the 1st respondent at Rs.1,.19,300/- the Tribunal allowed the 1st respondent to realize the above said amount from the 2nd respondent and the appellant with 9% interest per annum form the date of the petition. 4. After quantifying the compensation due to the 1st respondent at Rs.1,.19,300/- the Tribunal allowed the 1st respondent to realize the above said amount from the 2nd respondent and the appellant with 9% interest per annum form the date of the petition. 4. Though the appellant has taken up the contention that the quantum determined by the Tribunal as compensation is excessive, the contention seriously pursued before us is that the Tribunal went wrong in as much as the appellant/insurer has been made liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. According to the appellant the insured allowed the 1st respondent to travel in the goods carriage as gratuitous passenger and thereby incurred liability. It was contended that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act the owner of a goods carriage has no obligation to insure persons carried in the goods carriage and hence no liability can be fixed on the insurer of that vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant cited before us the decision of the Apex court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (2003 (1) KLT 583 (SC) in support of his contention. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that since the accident occurred while the goods carriage was proceeding to the place from where the goods had to be loaded for transportation in the vehicle hired for that purpose and as the 1st respondent was traveling in the vehicle as the authorised representative of the owner of the said goods, the insurer cannot shirk its responsibility to indemnity the owner. Ext.B1 policy issued by the appellant had insured the 2nd respondent against liability incurred by him in respect of the bodily injury to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the goods carriage as enjoined by clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel raised an alternate contention based on the plea that the appellant having admitted the policy is bound to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent and thereafter to recover the amount from the 2nd respondent, if it so chooses. 7. Learned counsel raised an alternate contention based on the plea that the appellant having admitted the policy is bound to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent and thereafter to recover the amount from the 2nd respondent, if it so chooses. 7. In reply to the above arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in order to avail the benefit of clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act the 1st respondent shall, not only plead and prove that he was the authorised representative of the owner of the goods in question but also establish that he was traveling in the goods carriage along with the goods. According to the learned counsel only that owner or the authorised representative who accompanies the goods carried in the goods vehicle along will be entitled to realize the compensation from the insurer of the vehicle. 8. We have considered the materials on record as also the authorities cited before us by counsel on either side. Prior to the amendment of clause (b) (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act by Act 54/94 with effect from 14-11-1994 the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the goods carriage fell within the common class of gratuitous passengers. Statute did not require that a policy of insurance should cover the risk caused to passengers who are allowed to travel in a goods carriage either gratuitously or for reward or fare. In Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 403) the Apex Court while interpreting Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that persons traveling in goods vehicles, whether as owners of the goods or as passengers on payment of fare or as gratuitous passengers and sustains injury or dies in the accident, were not covered by the proviso (ii) of Section 95(1)(b)(i) of the said Act. In the above case, the Apex Court while interpreting the proviso (ii) to Section 95 (b)(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that only a vehicle which is used for systematically carrying passengers can be said to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. Hence, persons traveling in a goods vehicle, whether owners of the goods or passengers on payment of fare or as gratuitous passengers, could not be covered by proviso (ii). Hence, persons traveling in a goods vehicle, whether owners of the goods or passengers on payment of fare or as gratuitous passengers, could not be covered by proviso (ii). Therefore, the insurer of the goods vehicle was not liable to pay compensation. 9. In New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh (2001 (1) KLT 95 (SC) the Apex Court took the view that since the repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the question shall be considered in terms of the language of Section 147 of the Act which correspondents to Section 95 of the old Act and the changes that have been brought by the Legislature in the proviso to Section 147(1) of the new Act. The Apex Court held in Satpal Sing’s case (supra) that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. 10. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Asha Rani (2001) 6 SCC 724) a two Judges Bench of the Apex court opined that Satpal Singh’s case required reconsideration by a larger Bench. The above opinion was expressed on noticing that the statute does not contemplate passengers being carried in a goods carriage. The case that was thus referred to the larger Bench was decided by the Supreme court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165). It was held that Satpal Singh’s case was not correctly decided and that the insurer will not be liable to pay compensations to the owner of goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers and bodily injury. The above judgment was rendered on 3-12-2002. Placing reliance on the dictum laid down as above, the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance co.Ltd v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (2003 (1) KLT 583) (supra) once again held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage and that the insurer would have no liability therefore. 11. 11. The statute has undergone a noteworthy change as far as clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act is concerned. Clause (b)(i) prior to its amendment by Act 54/94 read as follows: “(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, or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.” As per the amendment, the words “including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle” have been added immediately after the words “injury to any person” in clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act. The intention of the Legislature in introducing the above words is that the policy shall cover the owner of the goods or his authorised representative who dies or suffers any bodily injury while traveling as passenger in a goods carriage. The amended provision carves out ‘owner of the goods’ and ‘authorised representative of the owner’ from the common class of passengers of a goods carriage, for the purpose of bringing them within the purview of the Act policy. There is no case for the appellant or the respondents that the above is not the intention of the Legislature. But they disagree as regards the true meaning and scope of the newly added words in the above clause. The dispute centres round the question as to whether the word “carried” qualifies the owner of the goods who travels as a passenger in the goods carriage as also the goods owned by that passenger or it qualifies only the owner and his representatives and not the goods. 12. According to the appellant the goods must be available in the vehicle because it provides the nexus between the passenger and the goods and makes the passenger eligible to claim compensation from the insurer. 12. According to the appellant the goods must be available in the vehicle because it provides the nexus between the passenger and the goods and makes the passenger eligible to claim compensation from the insurer. But according to the 1st respondent goods need not invariably find a place in the goods carriage at the time when the accident occurs and that it would suffice if the passenger establishes that he was traveling as the owner of goods to be loaded into the vehicle and transported to the destination where unloading would take place. There cannot be any doubt that the owner of the goods or his authorised representative must be passengers of the goods carriage when the vehicle meets with an accident resulting in death or bodily injury to that passenger. Hence the word “carried” indubitably qualifies the passenger who may either be the owner of the goods or his representative. The word “carried” is in juxtaposition with the words “or his authorised representative”. According to the learned counsel for the appellant if the above words are ignored the word ‘carried’ will qualify the word ‘goods’. According to us, the language of the amended provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods in order to come within the purview of that clause. It is rather common that the owner of the goods or his representative who hires the vehicle travels in the hired vehicle from the place of hiring to the place where the goods are to be loaded into the vehicle and then proceeds to travel along with the goods. It is also common that after unloading the goods such passengers travel in the same vehicle to the place from where they commenced journey. The passenger does so and is allowed to do so in his capacity as the owner of the goods or his representative who has hired the vehicle for transporting goods. The amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word ‘carried’ qualifies the owner of goods or his representative and not the goods carried. If goods are found inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, it is a clinching circumstance to establish that the passenger who claims to be the owner of goods or the owner’s representatives was traveling in that capacity. If goods are found inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, it is a clinching circumstance to establish that the passenger who claims to be the owner of goods or the owner’s representatives was traveling in that capacity. Chances of passengers or the insured raising false claims in this regard cannot be safe method to ascertain the intention of the Legislature. False claims can be disproved by the insurer by adducing materials and evidence and also by raising appropriate contentions. In our view, such issues are matters of evidence and will not stand scrutiny while constructing a beneficial provision intended to compensate the loss caused to innocent victims of motor accidents. The party who claims that the person who died or suffered injury was the owner of goods or the representative of the owner of the goods shall discharge the burden cast on him. Merely for the reason that the benefit granted will be misused, it will not be proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above provision. We therefore hold that the owner or the authorised representative need not invariably be shown to accompany the goods, at the time the goods carriage meets with accident causing injury to or resulting in the death of the passenger who is either the owner of the goods or the authorised representative of the owner of the goods. 13. In the above view of the matter it is not necessary to consider the alternate contention that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent and can thereafter proceed to recover the amount from the 2nd respondent on the ground of violation of the policy condition. 14. We have gone through the computation of compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads and find no ground to interfere with the same. In the result, M.A.C.A. is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.