Rajes Kumar, J.;— Heard Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddharth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Despite the notice being sent to respondent no. 5, the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, by the registered post no one has put in appearance. By means of the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 27.3.1991 by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- towards compensation. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.7.1989 Sri Jai Prakash Jain, who was Junior Engineer in the Department of Irrigation of U.P., aged about 45 years, was travelling in a Truck, bearing registration no. UHN 3699, claimed to be the owner of the goods, which was being hired for transportation of the goods of the Irrigation Department. The said truck over-turned near Bhagela Check Post on Meerut-Muzaffar Nagar road being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the truck who lost his control over the steering due to high speed. As a result of such accident Sri Jai Prakash Jain suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. There is no dispute about the same. The Tribunal having regard to the age of the deceased and income estimated the compensation at Rs.2,34,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, there was breach of policy and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides the requirements of policies and limits of liability. He submitted that under this Section the Insurance Company was liable to pay against any liability which may be incurred 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. It does not include the gratuitous passenger or owner of the goods. It does not include the gratuitous passenger or owner of the goods. The owner of the goods has been added in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 with prospective effect and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable in case of death of owner of the goods. Sri Siddharth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants is not able to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant but has submitted that the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited by the Insurance Company and the same has been withdrawn by the claimants and let the appellant may be given right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. I have considered rival submissions. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act as it was at the time of the accident reads as follows: "Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and (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: (ii)........ ............... (i).......... (a)......... (b).............. (c).......... (ii)............. Explanation.-............ (2)............. (a)....... (b)......... (3)............. (4)............ (5)........... Under Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act the words "injury to any person" has been substituted by the "injury to any person, including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle" w.e.f. 14.11.1994, therefore, prior to 14.11.1994, the owner of the goods was not included in any person carried in the vehicle and, therefore, in respect of the owner of the goods the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. Since the entire amount has already been deposited by the appellant and the same has been withdrawn also, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Since the entire amount has already been deposited by the appellant and the same has been withdrawn also, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that as the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in respect thereof, the appellant is not liable to pay and it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable to pay. Since the entire amount has already been paid by the Insurance Company and the same has also been released in faour of the claimants, the appellant shall have a right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. _____________