Judgment Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, in a Motor Accident Claims Petition, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the original respondent no.3 i.e. the insurer, has filed the present Appeal. 3. Respondent no.1 has filed the said Petition, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident in question has occurred on 19.9.1992 at 7.30 am. The claimant suffered injuries, as the mini truck bearing registration No. MCC 1058, by which he was travelling on Ajintha-Buldhana road, was involved in accident at village Walsawangi. As a result, alleging that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the claim was made against the driver, owner and the insurer. The claimant-respondent no.1 claimed that he was travelling by the goods truck with this bags of jawar and as such, he being the owner of the goods, the insurer i.e. present appellant is liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the driver and the owner of the vehicle. 4. This plea of the respondent no.1-claimant of being the owner of the goods, found favour with the learned Member and in the circumstances, compensation of Rs. 80,000/-was granted and all the respondents were directed to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 5. Mr. Godsay, learned counsel for the appellant relies in the ratio of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani 2003 (2) SCC 223 . In the said case, similar situation had arisen. In paragraph no.10, the Supreme Court, ultimately recited the law on the question as under: "10. In Satpal case (supra) 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, by which the 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", the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if the 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 clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include 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-existing 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 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 the 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 any bodily injury." 6. In the present case, the accident has occurred on 19.9.1992, i.e. prior to the amendment of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act in 1994. In the circumstances, the ratio of Asha Rani (supra) would be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the question as to whether the respondent no.1-claimant was travelling in the goods truck, either as a gratuitous passenger or as the owner of the goods becomes irrelevant. Unfortunately, the Appeal will have to be allowed. The Appeal is therefore allowed, without any order as to costs. The direction of the learned Member of M.A.C.T., Jalna to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the compensation, is hereby set aside. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to it.