JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 03.04.2013 in MVOP.No.321 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur (for short 'the Tribunal'), the Oriental Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P. preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's Award. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The petitioners filed a claim under sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V.Rules for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing the death of Yerramsetty Nagaraju (hereinafter be referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident. 4. The claimant's case is that the deceased worked as a Sweeper in a private college at Yanamalakuduru and used to earn Rs.3,300/- per month. On 06.06.2010 at about 07.00 PM, the deceased, his wife, daughter and one Prasad boarded at Chilakaluripeta in a lorry bearing No.AP27Y6449 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') by paying Rs.700/- towards transportation charges of the said luggage to go to Vijayawada to shift their family along with their luggage, i.e., household articles like cots, clothes, cookware, chairs and other household utensils etc. When the offending vehicle reached Atmakuru village, the offending vehicle’s driver drove it rashly and negligently and applied sudden breaks carelessly; as a result, the lorry turned turtle; the deceased and others fell from the lorry, and the deceased died on the spot due to multiple injuries all over his body. The other three goods owners travelled in the lorry died on the spot. A case was registered in Cr. No.94 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. by Station House Officer, Mangaligiri against the offending vehicle’s driver. 5. Respondent No.3 remained exparte. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statements separately. The 1st respondent submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver; he had a valid driving license at the time of the accident; the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Hence the 1st respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The 1st respondent submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver; he had a valid driving license at the time of the accident; the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Hence the 1st respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The 2nd respondent/insurance company submitted that there was no rash and negligent on the part of the offending vehicle's driver; the driver had no proper driving license; the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.A1 to A7, and Exs.X1 to X3, and on behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.B1 and B2. 9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and hence the deceased died. The Tribunal held that petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the petition date against the respondents. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the records. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence of the insurance company. The offending vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrier, and passengers are not allowed; the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has not observed a clear violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability on the insurance company instead of exonerating its liability by considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. The Tribunal also has not considered Exs.X1 to X3 and has not properly gone through the F.I.R. and charge sheet, which clearly shows that the offending is a goods-carrying vehicle and the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal has not observed that the insurance company is not liable when there is a violation of policy conditions. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the findings and observation of the learned Tribunal. 13. Now the point for determination is whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company. POINT : 14. There is no serious dispute about the manner of an accident. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the findings and observation of the learned Tribunal. 13. Now the point for determination is whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company. POINT : 14. There is no serious dispute about the manner of an accident. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver is also not in dispute. The finding of the Tribunal that the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver is also not in dispute. The said findings are not challenged by the insurance company despite the filing of the appeal. The finding of the Tribunal that the Ex.B1 policy was in force at the time of the accident is also not challenged by the insurance company by filing an appeal or cross-objections. The insurance company has also not disputed the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. A reading of the Award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation by following the principles laid down in D. Krishna Krishnaveni Vs. Md. Sikinder, 2009 (6) ALT 620 Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Raja Priya 2005 (4) A.L.T. 14 S.C., Oriental Insurance Company Insurance Limited Vs. Devireddy Kondareddy and others 2003 S.C.C. 3. 15. The prime contention of the appellant is that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as an owner of the goods but not a gratuitous passenger. The 1st petitioner, the mother of the deceased is examined as PW.1, it is the evidence of PW.1 that on 06.06.2010 at about 07.00 PM, the deceased along with his wife by name Nuka Ratnam, her daughter Bhavani and another started from Chilakaluripeta intending to shift their family to Yanamalakuduru along with their goods by engaging the offending vehicle and paid an amount of Rs.700/- towards transportation, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of owner of goods. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that it is true that there are already goods in the said lorry. She denied the suggestion that her son boarded the goods lorry as an unauthorized passenger, and the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as PW.2. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that it is true that there are already goods in the said lorry. She denied the suggestion that her son boarded the goods lorry as an unauthorized passenger, and the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as PW.2. According to his evidence, the lorry met with an accident on 06.06.2010 at 10.00 AM at Atmakuru village and his lorry capacity was 21 tons, he loaded pipes of 17 tons and after consultation with his owner. He took the luggage of said four persons in his lorry; he denied the suggestion that as the passengers paid money to him, he allowed them as mid-way passengers. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shows that the deceased and others travelled in the lorry along with their goods. The evidence of PW.2 shows that he only permitted the deceased and others to travel in the lorry. However, RW.1 - Mekala Rami Reddy, the Development Officer of the Insurance Company, stated in his cross-examination that they collected a premium for carrying goods in the offending vehicle and had no personal knowledge about the accident. In view of the same, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of RW.1 that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. Coming to the evidence of RW.2 - K. Vijaya Kumar, Senior Assistant in the R.T.A. office, he deposed that the cabin driver, cleaner and owner of the goods can travel, and no persons were permitted to travel in the carriage of the vehicle. In support of the said evidence, he relied on Ex.X2 - attested copy of R.C. particulars and Ex.X3 attested copy of the permit. As already observed, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as an owner of the goods. 16. Though PWs.1 and 2 were cross-examined on behalf of the insurance company, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. Contradicting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the respondent/insurance company did not choose to examine any witness who had got personal knowledge relating to the fact that to in what capacity the deceased travelled lorry. 16. Though PWs.1 and 2 were cross-examined on behalf of the insurance company, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. Contradicting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the respondent/insurance company did not choose to examine any witness who had got personal knowledge relating to the fact that to in what capacity the deceased travelled lorry. In the absence of such evidence, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1 and 2; on the other hand, the insurance company has taken the main objection that there are no such recitals in F.I.R. and Charge sheet. 17. On perusal of the charge sheet, it shows that there is a clear recital in it that on the night of 06.06.2010, having collecting of all the household articles, the deceased left their residence at Chilakaluripet and about 07.00 PM, the driver of the offending vehicle allowed the deceased 1 to 4 to stand in the lorry body between the cabin and the iron load. It is not mentioned in the charge sheet that the deceased and others loaded the household articles and were allowed to travel in the lorry. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court believes that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as the owner of the goods. The evidence on record shows that the deceased did not travel in the lorry cabin and travelled between the cabin and the iron load against the rules and regulations. 18. Thus it is established that the deceased was travelling as a representative of the owner of goods in the offending vehicle. The Tribunal relied on a decision in Ramesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company in 2001 ACJ 1565 (S.C.), the Apex Court held that “if a passenger is travelling along with his goods on the vehicle then he cannot be termed to be a gratutitious passenger”. The Tribunal also relied on a decision Sanjeev Guptha and others Vs. Ram Pal and others 2001 ACJ 2397, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that “certain small shop keepers were travelling in the truck on fateful day along with their goods and in such circumstances they cannot be termed to be gratuitous passengers, but in fact they were bonafide passengers travelling along with their goods”. 19. Ram Pal and others 2001 ACJ 2397, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that “certain small shop keepers were travelling in the truck on fateful day along with their goods and in such circumstances they cannot be termed to be gratuitous passengers, but in fact they were bonafide passengers travelling along with their goods”. 19. On the other hand, the policy issued under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and also called an Act policy. The Insurer's liability under this policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of the claim made by the third parties and the owner of the good or his authorized representative who travels in the goods vehicle along with the goods. The material on record shows that the deceased travelled in the goods vehicle as an owner of the goods. 20. The provision of Section 147 of the Act, 1988 came to be amended by the Amendment Act, 1994, and the expression "including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle" was added to it. The correctness of the decision in Satpal Singh's case was reconsidered by the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Asha Rani and others, (2003) 2 SCC 223 . The Three Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in para No. 9 of said Asha Rani's case held as under:- "9. In the 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 authorized 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 authorized representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. 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 authorized 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 the owner of the goods or his authorized 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 authorized 7 FA- 1388-16 representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include the owner of the goods or his authorized 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 the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle" which was added to the preexisting 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 make it compulsory for the Insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorized 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 the 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. 21. The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court were relied upon in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Devireddy Konda Reddy, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 339 , National Insurance Company Limited Versus Cholleti Bharatamma (2008) 1 SCC 423 , as well as in the case of Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Versus Saju P. Paul and another (2013) 2 S.C.C. 41 . 22. The provision of section 147 of the Act of 1988, amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, includes only the owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle, besides a third party to make liable the Insurer to indemnify the insured. 23. Since the evidence on record shows that the deceased travelled between the cabin and the iron load, this Court views that the Tribunal should have held that the insurance company can recover the amount after compensation to the claimants. 24. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs by modifying the Award passed by the Tribunal by holding that 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company can recover the compensation from the owners of the offending vehicle after payment of compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal within two months from the date of this Judgment by filing an Execution Petition before the Tribunal. The petitioners are entitled to compensation as apportioned by the Tribunal and permitted to withdraw per its terms. In all other aspects, the Award passed by the Tribunal holds good. 25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.