ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Insurer - New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred these appeals assailing the award dated 1.11.2000, which came to be passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ratangarh in bunch of claims arising out of the same motor vehicle accident on 16.1.1997. 2. Since, the short controversy involved in this bunch of appeals is similar, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. For brevity, the facts of SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.970/2001 are being discussed. 3. The controversy involved is to the legal issue as to whether the insurer company can be fastened upon the liability for compensation when the injured/deceased persons were travelling in the goods vehicle on hire. Learned counsels appearing for both the sides admit that no other issue is involved in these appeals. 4. On perusal of the material available on record and on hearing both the learned counsels, the undisputed facts appear that on the fateful day i.e. 16.1.1997, injured/deceased persons took the truck bearing registration No. RSC 4152 on hire to go to Suratgarh from Ratangarh. In the evening at about 7 p.m. when the truck reached Jetpur police out post, the said truck turned down and the passengers for hire got injured. They were admitted in hospital situated at Pallu for treatment. Two persons namely Gaduram and Parmeshwari scummed to injuries. Injured persons and legal heirs of the deceased persons have filed claim petitions on account of said road accident. 5. Learned tribunal framed as many as five issues on the basis of the averments made in the claim petition and the reply filed thereto. Relevant issue for the present controversy is issue No.5, which is as follows :- "Whether the insurer company is not liable for the compensation as the injured Sankarram was travelling in truck No. RSC 4152, a goods vehicle as a passenger on hire." 6. Learned tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the claimants/respondents on the basis of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh, reported in 2000 DNJ (SC) 62. Deciding other issues also in favour of the claimants, learned Tribunal has passed award in favour of them. Feeling aggrieved by the award, insurer company has preferred these appeals. 7. Deciding other issues also in favour of the claimants, learned Tribunal has passed award in favour of them. Feeling aggrieved by the award, insurer company has preferred these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is an undisputed fact that the injured/deceased persons were travelling in the goods vehicle i.e. truck No. RSC 4152 on hire. As the policy coverage of the goods vehicle does not cover the risk of persons travelling in the vehicle and it was not insured to be plied for hire or reward, the insurer company could have not been fastened with the liability of the award impugned. It has further been argued that learned tribunal has proceeded to pass the award in favour of the claimants on the basis of the judgment passed in Satpal Singh's case (supra), which has been over-ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors., reported in 2003 ACJ 1. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while fairly conceding the fact that injured/deceased persons were travelling in the goods vehicle on hire, has submitted that the insurer company can be given the liberty to realize the amount of award from the owner of the vehicle after making payment of the same to the claimants, if needed. 9. There is no quarrel about this factual aspect that the claimants/respondents were travelling in the goods vehicle on hire and the said vehicle was not covered to be plied for hire. But learned Tribunal has decided issue No.5 in favour of the claimants on the basis of the judgment rendered in Satpal Singh's case (supra). 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Asha Rani's case (supra) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has over-ruled the judgment rendered in Satpal Singh's case (supra) in light of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The relevant observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court may be reproduced here for the benefit of proper appreciation of the controversy involved :- "25. Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. The relevant observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court may be reproduced here for the benefit of proper appreciation of the controversy involved :- "25. Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a 'goods carriage'. 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis-a-vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words 'any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e., 'a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor." 11. It has further been observed as follows :- "29. We may consider the matter from another angle. Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act enables the insurers to raise defences against the claim of the claimants. In terms of clause (a) (I) (c) of sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act one of the defences which is available to the insurer is that the vehicle in question has been used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle was used. Such a statutory defence available to the insurer would be obliterated in view of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh's case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC)." 30. For the foregoing reasons, I am in respectful agreement with My Lord the Chief Justice of India that the decision of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled." 12. In light of the above, there is no hesitation for me to hold that the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal in regard to issue No.5 is liable to be set aside. 13. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled." 12. In light of the above, there is no hesitation for me to hold that the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal in regard to issue No.5 is liable to be set aside. 13. Insofar as the prayer made by learned counsel for the respondents that the insurer company may be given liberty to realize the amount from the insured after making payment of the claimants, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant such liberty to be given. As there is no question of fastening any liability upon the insurer company in light of the statutory provisions as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the light of the admitted facts, I feel persuaded to conquer to the argument advanced. Since the statutory provisions and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy out-rightly absolves the insurance company from the liability in the given facts, it will, in no way, be proper to compel the insurer company to pay the amount of award to the claimants and then to realize the same from the insured. 14. In view of whatever is stated above, the appeals are allowed and the award passed by learned Tribunal on 1.11.2000 separately in these appeals is quashed and set aside.