Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated 22.5.1997. Appeal No.694 seeks to challenge the award passed in claim No.68/92, while appeal No.523 seeks to challenge the award passed by the learned Tribunal in claim No.459/94. As such, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The necessary facts are that on 3.6.1991 deceased Mohd.Shahid was standing on the bus stand Gogunda, at that time, Nisar Ahmed, the owner and driver of jeep No.677 came with a jeep, which was going to Udaipur, and on his request, Mohd.Shahid boarded the jeep. After proceeding ahead on a turn the Fiat Car came from behind, jeep driver gave side, but for want of enough space, in the process of overtaking the car hit the jeep, with the result, that jeep overturned in a pit, consequently Mohd. Shahid and one more Bhoi (who happens to be Nand Lal, whose LRs filed claim No.459/94) died. 3. Since the factum of the vehicle being insured, factum of accident, factum of death, and the quantum of compensation are not in dispute, I need not go into that aspect of the matter. 4. The only submission made before me by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that admittedly the two victims were passengers in a private vehicle, for which insurance company is not liable. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, supported the impugned award. 6. Before the learned Tribunal, the parties do not appear to have joined issue on this aspect, as the liability was assailed only on the ground, that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. However, this being a pure legal question; is open to be challenged by the appellant. 7. On the factual aspect about the victims being the passengers in the jeep, there is no controversy, and insurance cover is on record as Ex.A2, which shows, that it was only an “Act Policy” and the premium of Rs.240/- was charged to cover third party risk. 8. That being the position, I am straightway refer to the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provide the requirement of the insurance cover, and requires compulsory insurance cover against death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle. 8. That being the position, I am straightway refer to the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provide the requirement of the insurance cover, and requires compulsory insurance cover against death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle. Even under the proviso, a compulsory insurance coverage is required in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle, and employees carried in a goods vehicle, to the extent of liability under Workmen’s Compensation Act and for third party. 9. The provisions did come for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court number of times. Instead of multiplying all those judgments, I may simply refer them. The first being, in Pushpa Bai Purshottam Udesh & Ors. vs. M/s.Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1977) 2 SCC 745 , then Amrit Lal Sood & Anr. vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors., reported in JT 1998(2) SC 484 = RLW 1998(2) SC 229, then Dr. T.V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan & Ors., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 748 = RLW 2002(1) SC 48, and the recent one being, that in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla vs. Tilak Singh & Ors., reported in JT 2006(4) SC 280 = RLW 2006(3) (SC) 1781. 10. Tilak Singh's case was a case of pillion rider of scooter, however, in this case, the previous judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as referred to above, had been considered, and followed, not only that, even judgment in Asha Rani's case was also considered, and followed, by holding, that the observations made in Asha Rani's case, which were in connection with carrying passengers in goods vehicle, would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in other vehicles also, and it was held, that in all these the insurance company is not liable. 11. Respectfully agreeing with these judgments, I am left with no option but to allow the appeal. 12. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. 11. Respectfully agreeing with these judgments, I am left with no option but to allow the appeal. 12. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned award, so far as it holds the insurer liable, is set aside, and the insurer is exonerated, however, it is clarified, that whatever amount have been paid by the insurer, on no fault liability basis, or for fulfilling the requirement of filing the present appeals, shall be retained by the claimants, and the insurer would be entitled to recover back the said amount from the owner, in these proceedings itself, and whatever amounts remain outstanding to the claimants, for that, the claimants would be free to proceed against the owner. The parties shall bear their own costs.