Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall govern aforesaid both the appeals arisen out of the common award. ( 2. ) THE appellant insurer has filed these appeals being aggrieved by the common award dated 30. 3. 1993 passed by the First additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 60 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of M. A. No. 352 of 1993 along with Claim Case no. 62 of 1991 filed by the respondent No. 1 of M. A. No. 351 of 1993 awarding the claims jointly and severally against the respondent Raj Kumar Gangwani, Ram Singh and appellant for the sum of Rs. 86,400 and Rs. 42,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum respectively in the aforesaid claim cases. ( 3. ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 16. 1. 1991 at about 7 a. m. Amrit lal Soni aged about 19 years and Dhammi bai aged about 40 years were returning to their village Katra from Sohagi along with the vegetables, their business goods, in a truck bearing registration No. MKA 1252, driven by respondent Ram Singh in a rash and negligent manner. Resultantly, the truck turned turtle near village Urtala in which Dhammi Bai died on the spot while amrit Lal sustained grievous injuries and during treatment he succumbed to injuries. On lodging the F. I. R. a criminal case was registered against the aforesaid respondent and investigated. He was charge-sheeted for such offence. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 of M. A. No. 351 of 1993 being son of the deceased Dhammi and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of M. A. No. 352 of 1993 being mother and brother of deceased Amrit Lal contended that both the deceased were running the business of vegetables and for their business they were bringing the vegetables by the offending truck after paying the freight and in order to save their goods they were also travelling in it. The claimants were dependent on the deceased. Due to their untimely death in the aforesaid accident they were deprived of their dependency and also from love and affection of the deceased. Beside such profession, Amrit Lal was the student of 12th class. With those backgrounds respondent nos. 1 to 3-claimants of M. A. No. 352 of 1993 have filed the claim for compensation of Rs. Due to their untimely death in the aforesaid accident they were deprived of their dependency and also from love and affection of the deceased. Beside such profession, Amrit Lal was the student of 12th class. With those backgrounds respondent nos. 1 to 3-claimants of M. A. No. 352 of 1993 have filed the claim for compensation of Rs. 9,73,800 while claimant-respondent no. 1 of M. A. No. 351 of 1993 has filed claim for compensation of Rs. 3,98,000. As per further averments in the claim petition on the date of the incident the respondent raj Kumar Gangwani was the registered owner of the said truck under whose employment and instructions the respondent ram Singh drove the same while it was insured with the appellant. ( 5. ) IN reply of respondent Raj Kumar gangwani the truck owner and Ram Singh the driver in both cases, the averments of the claim petitions are denied. As per further averments the truck was driven with care and cautions in normal speed by the driver. The accident took place in order to save a bullock cart. Thus, the liability to indemnify the claim cannot be saddled against them. Ram Singh driver had a duly and effective driving licence and the truck was duly insured with the appellant. Thus, on holding any liability in respect of such accident, the same be saddled only against the appellant insurer. ( 6. ) IN reply of the appellant in both the cases, by denying the averments of claim petitions it is stated that driver Ram Singh did not have a valid and effective driving licence. The deceased were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the truck for which the truck was not insured as such the deceased were permitted to travel in such truck contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, no liability could be saddled against it. ( 7. ) AFTER framing the issues in both the claim cases, joint trial was held by the tribunal in Claim Case No. 60 of 1991. After recording the evidence, on appreciation of it both the claim cases were awarded jointly and severally against the appellant, driver and owner of the offending truck as mentioned above. The same are challenged by the insurer in these appeals. ( 8. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah and Mr. After recording the evidence, on appreciation of it both the claim cases were awarded jointly and severally against the appellant, driver and owner of the offending truck as mentioned above. The same are challenged by the insurer in these appeals. ( 8. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah and Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel for appellant assailed the impugned awards saying that provisions of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was then in force has not been considered by the Tribunal with proper approach, even the law laid down by the apex Court in this regard has not been followed. By elaborating this argument he said that alleged incident took place in between 1988 and 1994 when the passengers travelling along with their goods in such vehicle were not covered under the insurance policy. By referring the insurance policy he said that gratuitous passenger or the passengers with goods were not covered by it, as no additional premium was paid by the owner of such truck in this regard. The truck was insured for third party risk along with one driver, cleaner and five labourers. The deceased were not covered by any of these categories as they were travelling in it with their goods while as per the case of the appellant they were the gratuitous passengers; in any case their risk was not covered under the policy. He placed his reliance on some decisions of the Apex Court and prayed for exonerating the appellant to indemnify the liability of impugned award by allowing its appeal. ( 9. ) NONE appeared on behalf of the claimants-respondents and truck owner raj Kumar Gangwani to respond to the aforesaid arguments. ( 10. ) MR. Ravendra Tiwari, appearing counsel for respondent Ram Singh, driver, by justifying impugned award said that as per contract of insurance the registered owner of the truck was first party while the appellant insurer was the second party and all other persons including the deceased were falling under the category of third party, thus, the risk in respect of deceased persons as for third party was covered under the policy. No additional premium was necessary for it. He further said that relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are enacted by keeping in view the social welfare of the victim of vehicular accident, the same be construed liberally. No additional premium was necessary for it. He further said that relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are enacted by keeping in view the social welfare of the victim of vehicular accident, the same be construed liberally. Under such premises the Tribunal has not committed any error in saddling the liability against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned award does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of these appeals. ( 11. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel i have gone through the record of both the claim cases along with the impugned award. I have not found any perversity or infirmity in appreciation of evidence for holding liability of such accident against the aforesaid driver and truck owner as the truck was driven by said Ram Singh in a rash and negligent manner under the employment of said truck owner Raj Kumar gangwani. But, the liability to indemnify such claim was wrongly saddled against the appellant insurer, the same is not sustainable because of following reasons. ( 12. ) UNDER the repealed Motor Vehicles act, 1939, there was some provision for covering the risk of passengers travelling in a goods vehicle along with their goods but in the new enactment of Motor vehicles Act, 1988, such provision was neither enacted nor in existence on commencing such Act on 1. 7. 1989 but by amendment act 54 of 1994 by amending the provision of section 147 the original Act the risk of any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle was also covered. Such amended provision came into force on 14. 11. 1994 with prospective effect and not retrospective. 7. 1989 but by amendment act 54 of 1994 by amending the provision of section 147 the original Act the risk of any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle was also covered. Such amended provision came into force on 14. 11. 1994 with prospective effect and not retrospective. Before amendment such provision was read as under: "147 (1) (b) (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;" And subsequent to amendment the same is read as under: "147 (1) (b) (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;" ( 13. ) BEFORE giving any finding in this regard, I would like to refer some decided cases of the Supreme Court in which the aforesaid question was considered and answered, firstly, in the matter of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 acj 1 (SC), in which it was held as under: " (9) In Satpal Singhs case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the court assumed that the provisions of section 95 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, are identical with section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. On an erroneous impression this court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor vehicles (Amendment) Act of 1994 is examined, particularly section 46 of Act 54 of 1994 by which expression injury to any person in the original Act stood substituted by the expression injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle, conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression to any person it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of section 46 also stated that it seeks to amend section 147 to include the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the insurance policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994 and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre-existed expression injury to any person is either clarificatory or amplification of the preexisting statute. On the other hand, it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this court in Satpal Singhs case (supra), therefore, must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accord-ingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation 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 goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. " ( 14. ) ON a subsequent occasion again this principle was followed by the Apex court in the matter of National Insurance co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC), in which it was held as under: " (13) An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorised representative travelling in a vehicle became compulsory only w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994, i. e. , from the date of coming into force of amending Act 54 of 1994. (15) A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has ben contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. Tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of goods carriage as contained in section 2 (14) of motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this court in asha Ranis case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same, as accident had taken place on 24. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of goods carriage as contained in section 2 (14) of motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this court in asha Ranis case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same, as accident had taken place on 24. 11. 1991, i. e. , much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment. " ( 15. ) BESIDES the above, this question was also considered in the matter of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbha-yamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC), in which it was held as under: " (6) In Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), this court while overruling Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has clearly held that the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation for death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. (8) The question again came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this court, of which we are members, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), wherein upon considering the effect of amendment carried out in section 147 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, it was opined: 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 vehicle to insure it compulsory, 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 of the Act would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention, there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the expression "any person" contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. If such was the intention, there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the expression "any person" contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. , the observations made in this connection by the court in Asha Rani, 2003 acj 1 (SC), to which one of us, Sinha, j. , was a party, however, bear repetition: (26) In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used, i. e. , a "third party". Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), it has been noticed that the 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 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. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite 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. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite 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 was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. " ( 16. ) IN view of aforesaid dictums on examining the case at hand and considering the apparent fact that on the date of the incident the amended provision of section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act was neither in existence nor was enforced. Hence, by the existing policy the risk of the passenger travelling with their goods was not covered with the insurance policy, as additional premium for the same was not paid. Thus, in any circumstance the appellant insurer could not be held liable to indemnify the liability of impugned award. ( 17. ) UNDER the aforesaid premises the tribunal committed grave error in holding the liability to indemnify the claim of the respondents against the appellant, the same is not sustainable. Thus, the impugned award till this extent deserves to be and is hereby set aside. ( 18. ) RESULTANTLY, by allowing both the appeals the appellant is exonerated from indemnify the liability of impugned award in both the cases. To this extent the award of both the cases is set aside and modified. However, it is clarified that claimants-respondents of both the cases shall be entitled and at liberty to recover the amount of compensation awarded in their favour by Tribunal from the aforesaid registered owner of the vehicle and driver. If the same has been paid by the appellant insurance company then it shall be at liberty to recover the same from the aforesaid owner of the vehicle and driver by way of filing the execution proceeding in the Tribunal, it will not be necessary for it to file separate suit or other proceedings to recover the same. ( 19. If the same has been paid by the appellant insurance company then it shall be at liberty to recover the same from the aforesaid owner of the vehicle and driver by way of filing the execution proceeding in the Tribunal, it will not be necessary for it to file separate suit or other proceedings to recover the same. ( 19. ) BOTH the appeals are allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.