JUDGMENT : MOHINDER PAL, J. All these matters are taken up together having common question regarding liability of the Insurance Company when gratuitous passengers are travelling in goods carriage vehicles dies or sustains injuries in an accident. 2. Earlier, Mr. P.K. Handa, learned Counsel has been appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, he is stated to have expired. Ms. Sunita S. Chaturvedi learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondents in First Appeal No. 1622 of 2001 and First Appeal No. 1628 of 2001. The arguments on behalf of respondents in all the cases will be similar. In order to avoid other petitions go unrepresented, Ms. Sunita S. Chaturvedi learned Counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of all respondents in this group of appeals. 3. These appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Vadodara on 16-9-2000 in M.A.C. Petition Nos. 719 of 1989 along with allied petitions, wherein, appellant-Insurance Company has been jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation on account of death and injuries sustained in an accident which took place on 20-5-1989 at about 5-45 a.m. in between Bhumaswada and Bediya Road, Near Rumadiya Village. In this accident, six persons died, while others sustained serious injuries. 4. The Tribunal recorded the finding in separate claim petitions and finally concluded that provisions of Sec. 147 of the New Act will be applicable, and accordingly, held Insurance Company liable to indemnify and ultimately to pay the compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved from this decision, the present appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company. 5. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the findings of the Tribunal by holding that new provisions of Sec. 147 of the M.V. Act will be applicable in this case are erroneous, as the accident in question has taken place on 20-5-1989, when M.V. Act of 1939 was applicable, whereas, the new Act came into force on 1-7-1989. As the accident has taken place on 20-5-1989, the old Act will be applicable in this case. He has further raised arguments regarding liability of the Insurance Company. As the accident has taken place on 20-5-1989, the old Act will be applicable in this case. He has further raised arguments regarding liability of the Insurance Company. It has been argued that as per the averments of the claimants, it has been admitted that the passengers travelling in the Truck were gratuitous passengers and had paid fare for travelling in the Truck. They were not owners of the goods and in absence of any connection with the goods, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle in question was insured as goods carriage vehicle which was not authorized to carry the passengers. He has also referred to the old provisions of the Act and has submitted that even otherwise as per provisions contained in the Act of 1939, the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle were not covered to be paid compensation by the Insurance Company in the case of accidents. 6. The arguments raised by the learned Counsel are controverted by Ms. Chaturvedi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the ground that even if vehicle was insured as goods carriage vehicle, the deceased as well as injured passengers travelling in such vehicle were entitled to the compensation. The Insurance Company can pay the same, and thereafter, recover it from the owner and driver of the Truck. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. From perusal of Para 2 of the judgment of the Tribunal, it has been stated that all the victims including six deceased were occupying their seats in the offending Truck bearing Registration No. GTB-6367 either in the capacity of labourers or in the capacity of the fare-paying passengers along with their goods. From the own admission of the respondents, it is clear that they were gratuitous passengers. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. Nanavati for the appellant-Insurance Company has referred to the provisions contained in the old Act of 1939 and has submitted that even if passengers were travelling with the goods, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable and accident has taken place on 20-5-1989, while new Act has come into force on 1-7-1989 i.e. after the date of accident. 9. The liability of the Insurance Company in the case of gratuitous passengers has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. 9. The liability of the Insurance Company in the case of gratuitous passengers has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 223 . While dealing with this question, in Paras 8 and 9, it has been held as under : "8. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the requirements of policies and limits of liability had been provided in Sec. 95. Proviso to Sec. 95(1) of the said Act unequivocally states that the policy shall not be required in case of a goods vehicle for passengers being carried in the said vehicle. In Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 (1) SCC 403 , while approving the earlier decision of the Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., 1977 (2) SCC 745 , the Court construed the provisions of Sec. 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and held that while the expression any person and the expression every motor vehicle are in wide terms, but by proviso (ii) it restricts the generality of the main provision by confining the requirement to cases where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, therefore, the vehicle had to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried. The Court further held that the goods vehicle cannot be held to be a passenger vehicle even if the vehicle was found to be used on some stray occasions for carrying passengers for hire or reward. Undoubtedly, Mallawwa case (supra), was dealing with a situation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 9. In Satpal case (supra), the Court assumed that the provisions of Sec. 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Sec. 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. 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. If the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Sec. 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 Sec. 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 pre-existing statute. On the other hand, it clearly demonstrates that the Legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Sec. 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 (supra), 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." 10. Our own High Court, while deciding the similar question in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandrakant Revashankar Bhatt, Since deceased Thro. Mahendra Revashankar Bhatt, reported in 2016 ACJ 557 , in Para 55, has held as under : "55. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant-Insurance Companies to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants after coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner, in view of the fact that the victims were gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle. While it is true that the Claims Tribunal has in the body of the judgment permitted the Insurance Company to recover the amount paid towards compensation from the owner after treating the award as a decree in favour of the Insurance Company, in view of the fact that the passengers were gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle, the provisions of sub-secs. (4) and (5) of Sec. 149 of the Act would not be attracted, and therefore, the Claims Tribunal had no power to issue such directions to the Insurance Company to first pay, and thereafter, recover the amount from the owner." 11. (4) and (5) of Sec. 149 of the Act would not be attracted, and therefore, the Claims Tribunal had no power to issue such directions to the Insurance Company to first pay, and thereafter, recover the amount from the owner." 11. The findings of the Tribunal by holding the Insurance Company jointly liable with owner and driver are contrary to the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The Tribunal seems to be not justified in holding the Insurance Company to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants after coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in question which was insured as a goods carriage vehicle. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, these appeals are allowed. The Insurance Company is absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. However, the decision passed by the Tribunal will be treated as award and decree in favour of the original claimants who can recover the compensation amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 13. At the time of admission of these appeals, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount of compensation, which has been deposited. The amount so deposited, will be returned back to the Insurance Company along with interest accrued on this amount. Appeals allowed.