JUDGMENT : B. Chandra Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the order dated 21.11.2005 in O.P. No. 529 of 2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. The claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the loss sustained by him due to the accident occurred on 29.08.2000. The petitioner engaged a lorry bearing No.AP.37.U.1026 for transporting 12 1/2 tones of oranges from his village to Hyderabad. It is alleged that the driver of the said lorry drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the lorry dashed against another lorry bearing No. AP-11-T-7589 when it reached the outskirts of Anneparthi village on Nalgonda - Narketpally road. As a result of this accident, the oranges loaded in the lorry bearing No. AP-37-U-1026 were damaged. 5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. 6. The insurance company contested the matter. The main contention of the insurance company is that as per Section 147(2) of the Act, the policy shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. 7. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration as follows: "1. Whether 12 1/2 tonnes of battalion oranges of the petitioner were damaged in the road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP-37-U-1026 by its driver? 2. Whether the claim is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary and proper parties? 3. Whether the petitioner i.e. the owner of the damaged property (12 1/2 tonnes of battalion garden) is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what quantum? Against whom? 4. To what relief?" 8. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and also examined one more witness as P.W. 2 and Exs. A.1 to A.11 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the insurance policy as Ex. B.1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. 9. Against whom? 4. To what relief?" 8. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and also examined one more witness as P.W. 2 and Exs. A.1 to A.11 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the insurance policy as Ex. B.1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. 9. Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for the insurance company, submitted that the policy does not cover any contractual liability under proviso (ii) to Section 147(1) of the Act. It is also his submission that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the same lorry driver in which the oranges were loaded. The petitioner being the owner of the goods entered into a contract with the owner of the lorry and when damage is caused to the goods loaded in the lorry, the owner of the lorry has to indemnify the same. He has filed a judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ghulam @ Ghlam Haqqani Khan and Niranjan Singh, (2013) ACJ 1830. 10. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the claimant, argued that after the amendment of the Act in 1994, the owner of the goods is also entitled for compensation and he has also made reference to Section 147 of the Act in support of his contention. 11. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the goods. 12. Section 147 of the M.V. Act is as follows: 13. 11. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the goods. 12. Section 147 of the M.V. Act is as follows: 13. 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 authorised 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, 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; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained, by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, of 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle: or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:-- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amounts of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier." 14. There cannot be any doubt to say that if damage to any property of the third party is caused while using the vehicle in public place the insurance company is liable to pay compensation under Sub-Section 1 of Section 147 of the Act. But the proviso to the Section makes it clear that the policy shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. Under Clause (b) of Sub Section 2 of Section 147 of the Act in respect of damage to any property of a third party, the liability is limited to Rs. 6,000/-. No doubt, if the owner of the goods himself sustains injury or dies in an accident, the injured or the legal heirs of the dead persons may be entitled to claim compensation and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the goods under 147(1)(b) of the Act. But since the Section makes it very clear that the policy shall not be required to cover the contractual liability, the owner of the goods who has entered into a contract for transporting the goods in a lorry is not entitled to recover any amount from the insurance company. Since the provision is very clear, in the above circumstances, the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the insurance company is also liable to pay compensation. 15. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent making the insurance company is liable is set aside. However, the award of the Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle stands confirmed and the petitioner can recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand disposed of.