JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. No one turned up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls. 3. This appeal is under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. No. 62 of 1993 dated 14.02.2006 whereby, the tribunal has awarded in total a compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- and directed the appellant-insurance company to pay the said amount. Though several grounds were agitated by the appellant in this appeal but at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant confined only to the ground that as the deceased was admittedly travelling in a goods vehicle along with goods and met with an accident before the amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation but he did not press the other grounds. 4. The brief facts involved in this case is that the deceased Rajan Mahato, aged about 22 years at the time of his death, while travelling on board the truck No. D.L. -16A/1904, died because of an accident by which the said truck turned turtle on 26.12.1992 and it is the case of the claimants that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of the accident. The owner and driver of the truck did not contest the claim petition and were set ex-parte. The appellant-insurance company inter-alia pleaded that the owner and driver permitted the deceased to travel in the goods carriage vehicle i.e. a truck, hence there is breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, it is submitted that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 5. The learned tribunal framed the following eight issues:- Is the suit as framed maintainable? Is the suit barred by the principles of limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence? Is the Truck No. D.L.-16A/1904 insured at the time of accident. Was the driver of the said truck possessing valid driving license, road permit, road tax, fitness etc. at the relevant time of accident? Was the deceased, Rajan Mahto, vegetable vendor and was a bonafide passenger of the said truck? Are the applicants and respondent no.4 entitled to get the compensation and to what extent? Was the driver of the said truck possessing valid driving license, road permit, road tax, fitness etc. at the relevant time of accident? Was the deceased, Rajan Mahto, vegetable vendor and was a bonafide passenger of the said truck? Are the applicants and respondent no.4 entitled to get the compensation and to what extent? Has the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver? What relief/reliefs the applicants are entitled to? 6. Besides the oral testimony the claimants have also proved the certified copy of the F.I.R, Charge Sheet and Postmortem Report of the deceased while no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed D.T.O. verification letter and report of investigator on the point of absence of Driving License and incompetency of the driver for plying heavy motor vehicle. 7. In support of its case, the claimants examined 5 witnesses. A.W.1, 4 & 5 were the co-passengers of the deceased in the ill-fated truck. They all have stated that they along with the deceased Rajan Mahato were on board the truck with their vegetables and the vehicle was rash and negligently driven and accidently turned turtle resulting in the death of Rajan Mahato. A.W.2 is the claimant and A.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. 8. The learned tribunal after considering the evidence in the record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by the driver. The truck was insured at the time of accident. The plea of defective licence was not accepted by the tribunal. So far as the issue no.5 is concerned, the learned tribunal held that the insurer is liable to make compensation on the basis of the principle of indemnification and awarded the said compensation. 9. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Motor Vehicle Act was amended with effect from 14.11.1994 by which inter-alia Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended by providing for insurance for injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives carried in the vehicle, so prior to the amendment of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the said Amendment of 1994, the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives being carried in the vehicle were not covered by the insurance. Hence, it is submitted that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable by way of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar reported in (2003) 9 SCC 668 as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sumitra Mahto and others in M.A. No.392 of 2003 decided on 18.01.2007. 10. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (supra), which is a decision by a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.9 held as under:- “9. In Satpal case 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. 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 pre-existing 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph nos.10 and 11 held as under:- “10. Third-party risks in the background of vehicles which are the subject-matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII of the old Act and Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to Section 147 needs to be juxtaposed with Section 95 of the old Act. Third-party risks in the background of vehicles which are the subject-matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII of the old Act and Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to Section 147 needs to be juxtaposed with Section 95 of the old Act. Proviso to Section 147 of the Act reads as follows: “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, 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.” It is of significance that the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act contained clause (ii) which does not find place in the new Act. The same reads as follows: “(ii) except 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, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises”. The difference in the language of “goods vehicle” as appearing in the old Act and “goods carriage” in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression “in addition to passengers” as contained in the definition of “goods vehicle” in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used in “goods carriage” is “solely for the carriage of goods”. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. This is clear from the expression “in addition to passengers” as contained in the definition of “goods vehicle” in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used in “goods carriage” is “solely for the carriage of goods”. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of the insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of “public service vehicle”. The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the WC Act”). There is no reference to any passenger in “goods carriage”. 11. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sumitra Mahto and others (supra), in the facts and circumstances of that case where the vehicle in question was a goods carrying vehicle and the accident took place on 27.03.1994 and the deceased was travelling on the vehicle with his goods sustained injury and died, the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragraph nos.8 and 9 held as under:- “8. Having considered the entire facts of the case and the law discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the Insurance Company has no liability for payment of compensation, rather, it is the owner of the vehicle who shall be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 9. For the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. It is held that the compensation amount as assessed by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent-owner of the vehicle.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. 9. For the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. It is held that the compensation amount as assessed by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent-owner of the vehicle.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record the only point to be determined in this appeal is that “Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the Tribunal?”. 14. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Since in this case as already indicated above, the accident took place after coming into force of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but before the amendment made in the said Act by the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and the deceased was travelling on the vehicle along with his goods, this Court is of the considered view that in the impugned judgment the Tribunal has not considered the question of the liability of the Insurance Company in this case in its right perspective and erroneously held that in this case the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and not the owner of the vehicle. 15. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants in the proportions mentioned therein shall be paid by the respondent no.5 of this appeal, who was the opposite party no.1 in the Tribunal instead of appellant Insurance Company as ordered in the impugned judgment and award. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The statutory amount if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Court below forthwith.