Judgment : 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates for the parties and also in view of the fact that Tribunal records have been received by this Court, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is an appeal by insurer questioning the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 1341/1995 dated 10-3-2005 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Addl. MACT, Haveri, whereunder claim petition filed by the wife and mother of the deceased came to be allowed in part and a compensation of Rs.2,60,704/-with interest at 6% per annum has been awarded. 3. Facts in nutshell leading to filing of this appeal are as under:- 3.1. A claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) came to be filed by the wife and mother of one Sri. Yallappa Budhihal who expired on account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16-5-1993 while traveling in a Matador van bearing registration No. KA-05/2665 and claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The second respondent insurer appeared before the tribunal and contested the claim petition by filing detailed written statement. First respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and was placed ex parte. 3.2. Petitioners in order to prove their case examined the first petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.6. They also examined one witness as P.W.2. Respondents did not lead any evidence but got marked the policy of the offending vehicle as Ex. R. 1. Considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2, 60,704/-with interest at 6% per annum, payable from date of petition till date of realization. It is this judgment and award which is questioned in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 5. Sri. Srilshaila, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer would contend that deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle and passengers cannot be carried in a goods vehicle and as such the deceased is a gratuitous (unauthorized) passenger in the goods vehicle and there is no coverage for such persons under the policy /Ex. R-1, as such the appellant/insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants. R-1, as such the appellant/insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants. He would elaborate his submission by contending that accident occurred prior to amendment Act 54 of 1994 which came in to force (14-11-1994) and as on the date of the accident traveling in a goods carriage which is constructed solely for the purposes of carriage of goods was prohibited and thus he submits it would be in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. He would submit that tribunal erred in not considering the precedents laid down by the Honorable apex Court in RAMESH KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 6 SCC 713 and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS ASHA RANI AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 . He would also contend that the tribunal committed an error in not framing an issue in this regard though such plea had been raised. On these grounds he seeks for setting aside the award of the tribunal and prays for absolving the insurer from indemnifying the insured. 6. Per contra, Sri. Navin Chatrad, learned counsel appearing for Mahesh Wadeyar would support the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contend that deceased was working as a Police constable and was proceeding in the offending vehicle on duty. He would submit, to establish the said fact claimants have examined P.W.2 Sri. Gurupatrayya, a Police Constable who traveled with the deceased from Bangalore to Ranebennur and as such he submits that deceased was not an unauthorized or gratuitous passenger. He would submit that Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles rules would permit for Uniformed Officers of the Police to proceed in a goods vehicle to attend to their duty and as such, he contends that judgments relied upon by the learned counsel would not be applicable. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that following points arise for consideration:- .(i) Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger traveling in vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/2665 on 16-5-1993 i.e., the date of the accident and as such the insurer is not required to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the appellants? .(ii) To what order? RE-POINT NO.1: 8. The claimants have examined one witness by name Sri. Guruputrayya who is working in KSRP Police. .(ii) To what order? RE-POINT NO.1: 8. The claimants have examined one witness by name Sri. Guruputrayya who is working in KSRP Police. He has stated in his evidence that he knew deceased Yallappa Budhihal and he expired in a road traffic accident. He has also stated that on the date of the accident, he and deceased came from Bangalore together to Ranibennur and the deceased Yallappa who was on duty boarded a mini lorry i.e, the offending vehicle since at that point of time, he did not get any vehicle to proceed to Hubli. He has categorically stated that deceased had to proceed urgently on duty and as such he boarded the offending vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for the insurer has specifically contended that deceased was a gratuitous passenger traveling in the offending vehicle and as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. In this context, he relies upon the decision of Ramesh Kumar’s case. Thus, it would be necessary to examine the statement of objections filed by the insurer before the tribunal. On perusal of the same, it would emerge that no such plea has been raised by the insurer before the tribunal. It is only at the stage of appeal, such a plea has been put forward. No witness has been examined on behalf of the insurer to repudiate the claim of the insurer. 10. The issue regarding liability of the insurer to pay compensation under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be considered by the Honorable Apex Court in Asha Rani’s Case by holding as under:- “9.) In Satpal’s case (supra) the court assumed that the provisions of section 95(1) of 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 of his authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46, 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 authorized representative carried in the vehicle”, the 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 authorized representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of Clause 46 also states that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorized 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 authorized representative carried in the vehicle’ which was added to the pre-existed expression ‘injury to any person’ is either classificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other had 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 authorized 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 of suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this court in Satpal’s case, 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 accordingly 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 authorized representative on being carried in goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.” 11. As stated herein above in the instant case, what has been contended by the insurer in that the statutory liability under section 147 of the Act has come into effect only after the amendment Act 54 of 1994 which came into effect form 14.11.1994 and not prior to that and the accident in question having occurred on 16.05.1993, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. As noted herein above, the insurer has not raised a plea that deceased was an unauthorized passenger traveling in a goods vehicle. On coming into force of 1988 Act i.e. Act 59 of 1988 correspondingly, the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 has come into force w.e.f. 01.07.1989 whereunder Rule 100 provides for carriage of persons in goods vehicle and sub-rule (1) of Rule 100 reads as under:- “100.) CARRIAGE OF PERSONS IN GOODS VEHICLE –(1) Subject to the provision of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle: Provided that the owner or the hirer or a bonafide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in uniform traveling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried, --- .(i) in light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs, not more than one; .(ii) in any other light transport goods vehicle not more than three and (iii) in any goods vehicle not more than seven: Provided that the provisions of sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of the above proviso shall not be applicable to the vehicles plying on the inter-state routes or the vehicles carrying goods from one city to another city” 12. The Honorable Apex Court in Asha Rani’s case while interpreting section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act with reference to unamended provision vis-à-vis amended provision which brings within its sweep “including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in vehicle”. Held that it would be difficult to construe that the expression “including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in vehicle” which was added to the pre-existing expression “injury to any person” is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute and accordingly, Honorable Apex Court held that insurer will not be liable to pay compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative of being carried in the goods vehicle when the vehicle meets with the accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. 13. In the instant case, the question of deceased being either the “owner of the goods or his authorized representative” does not arise. What is to be noticed is the words used in the pre-amended section of Section 147 is the words used “death of or bodily injury to any person” to bring within its sweep and these words when read in conjunction Rule 100 to Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules to the facts of the present case, it would emerge that deceased was not a person traveling in a goods vehicle with his goods nor he was an authorized representative of the owner of the goods or a gratuitous passenger. The evidence of PW-2 in this regard would be of relevance for being extracted, who was a co-employee (Constable in Karnataka State Reserve Police) which reads as under: “………………. On the date of accident, deceased Yallappa and myself were coming from Bangalore to Ranebennur. The deceased Yallappa on account of official work boarded the offending vehicle to proceed to Rayapura…………” 14. This Court in a decision rendered in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. SMT. CHANDRAMMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1998 KAR 523 as held as under: “MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 (Central Act No.4 of 1939) Section – 96 Two Police Constables after completing their duty, boarded a Lorry proceeding towards the police station to which they were attached. Within a short while thereafter there was violent collision between this Lorry and another stationery Truck parked on the Highway without parking lights. Within a short while thereafter there was violent collision between this Lorry and another stationery Truck parked on the Highway without parking lights. Tribunal awarded compensation holding that they were not passengers. In the appeal filed by the Insurer the High Court Held – Deceased constable had every reason to be traveling in the Lorry as a member of the Law Enforcement Machinery and as such entitled to compensation as he would not come within the excluded category.” 15. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, said Rayapura is not the home-town of the deceased. The said witness has withstood the cross examination and has denied the suggestion that deceased Yallappa was not traveling on duty. The insurer has not made any efforts to secure any witnesses from the K.S.R.P. to substantiate its claim as is now contended to establish the fact that deceased was not proceeding in the offending vehicle in the course of his duty. In the absence of any plea being raised before the tribunal and also in the absence of any evidence being put forth by the insurer, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention now raised by the insurer in this appeal that deceased was a unauthorized passenger traveling in offending vehicle and as insurer it is not liable to indemnify the insurer. Accordingly, contention of Mr. Srisaila is hereby rejected and it is held that deceased was not a gratuitous passenger. For the reasons stated herein above, Point no. 1 is answered in favour of the respondent/claimants and against the appellant/ insurer. RE-POINT NO.2: In view of the above discussion, following order is passed:- ORDER .(i) The appeal is dismissed; .(ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC No.1341/1995 dated 10.03.2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Addl. MACT, Haveri, is confirmed. (iii) No order as to costs; (iv) Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.