JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 (insurer of offending Truck number RJ-19-G-1343) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 22.06.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.40/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, and awarded compensation in their favour to tune of Rs.2,88,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 27.04.1995. While awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the insurer(s) of both the vehicles involved in the accident. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,10,000/- on account of untimely death of late Sh. Parvat Singh, who lost his life while he was travelling in truck bearing registration number RJ-19-G-1343 from Chanderiya to his native place Nagaur. The said truck was being plied by its driver, namely, Anwar Khan. When the said truck reached near Rupaheli, the said truck collided with another bearing registration number AP-04-T-2239, which was plied by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.4, namely, Hemprasad. The said accident took place due to negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicle. On account of the injuries suffered by late Sh. Parvat Singh, he died. It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was 38 years of age and he was earning Rs.3800/- per month. 3. Upon receipt of the summons, the non-claimants No.2, 4 and 5 did not appear and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. Name of non-claimant No.1 was, however, deleted. 4. The claim petition was contested by non-claimants No.3 (appellant herein) and the non-claimant No.6 i.e. insurer of another Truck No.AP-04-T-2239. The non-claimant No.3/appellant denied the averments made in the claim petition. An objection with regard to driver of the vehicle not having valid and effective licence was taken. It was further alleged that the since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and no premium was charged by the insurance company, therefore, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. 5. An objection with regard to driver of the vehicle not having valid and effective licence was taken. It was further alleged that the since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and no premium was charged by the insurance company, therefore, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. 5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including relief. In support of their claim petition, the claimant examined two witnesses viz. AW.1 Antar Kanwar and AW.2 Kalyan Singh and certain documents were exhibited. No evidence was, however, led by the non-claimants. 6. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard final arguments of the parties and after considering the material placed before it, vide judgment and award dated 22.06.2002 partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and both the insurance companies i.e. non-claimant No.3/appellant here in and non-claimant No.6 i.e. insurer of Truck No. AP-04-T-2239 were held liable to satisfy the award. 7. Being aggrieved of the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal, insofar as holding the appellant liable to pay compensation, the appellant/non-claimant No.3 has preferred this misc. appeal with a prayer to exonerate it from its liability. 8. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/non-claimant No.3 vehemently submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while deciding the issue No.4 against the appellant to the extent of 50%. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Parvat Singh was travelling in the Truck insured with the appellant, as a gratuitous passenger, which was a goods vehicle and, therefore, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation as no premium was charged covering the risk of any passenger travelling in the goods vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal itself has found that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the Truck, however, has committed error while treating him as a thirty party while relying upon a judgment passed in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal itself has found that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the Truck, however, has committed error while treating him as a thirty party while relying upon a judgment passed in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh & Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 227, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 724 , vide its order dated 17.08.2001 while disagreeing with the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satpal Singh (supra), made a reference to the larger Bench. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the said fact. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-claimant No.3 submits that the larger Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court while answering the reference referred to it, vide order dated 03.12.2002 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 223 overruled the judgment passed in the case of Satpal Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in 2002 in the case of Asha Rani (supra), the liability could not be fastened upon the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant/non-claimant No.3. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 i.e. driver and owner of the Truck number RJ-19-G-1343 opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He submits that since the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company, therefore, it has rightly been held liable to pay the compensation. 12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 13. It is also seen that vide the amendment made to Section 147 of the MV Act, the proviso provides for compulsory coverage of the drivers and conductors, however, the same deal with the liability on the owner of the vehicle to get it insured in case of any passenger in a goods vehicle. The relevant provision is reproduced as under : “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. The relevant provision is reproduced as under : “147. 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 authorized 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, 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.” Therefore, in the presence of specific stipulation in the provision itself, the liability of an injury caused to the passenger in the goods vehicle, cannot be imposed upon the Insurance Company. 14. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2002 in the case of Asha Rani (supra) while answering the reference referred to it has overruled the law laid down in the case of Satpal Singh (supra) and held that the person travelling in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger could not have been treated as a third party. 14. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2002 in the case of Asha Rani (supra) while answering the reference referred to it has overruled the law laid down in the case of Satpal Singh (supra) and held that the person travelling in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger could not have been treated as a third party. The relevant extract of the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court while answering the reference reads as under : “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. Furthermore, sub-clauses (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle 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. An owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this Court's decision in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh & Ors. [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 ] is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paid. [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 ] is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paid. 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 (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 (supra). 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 Company v. Satpal Singh & Ors. [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 ] has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled.” 15. This Court is also conscious of the fact that learned Tribunal had considered the precedent at that time taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satpal Singh (supra), however this Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1064 , wherein the accident took place when Section 147 originally existed in the MV Act and therefore, even when the award in the instant case of Saju P. Paul (supra) had been passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2002, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the same year, took into account the judgment rendered in Asha Rani (supra), which overruled the precedent set in Satpal Singh (supra). The relevant para of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saju P. Paul is reproduced as under : “15.1. With reference to the accident that took place on 24.12.1993 (prior to 1994 amendment) in SLP(C) Nos. 7241-43/2003, this Court in Cholleti Bharatamma in paragraphs 17,18,19,20 and 21 (Pgs. 430-431) held as under : “17. The relevant para of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saju P. Paul is reproduced as under : “15.1. With reference to the accident that took place on 24.12.1993 (prior to 1994 amendment) in SLP(C) Nos. 7241-43/2003, this Court in Cholleti Bharatamma in paragraphs 17,18,19,20 and 21 (Pgs. 430-431) held as under : “17. In the aforementioned case, accident took place on 24-12-1993. The respondents herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Kota Venkatarao who had allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 20 for travelling in the lorry. The Tribunal held: “In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the deceased and some others who travelled in the said vehicle in the capacity of owner of the luggage which was carried by them at the time of accident, it cannot be said that it is a violation of the policy, since it is not fundamental breach so as to afford to the insurer to eschew the liability altogether as per the decision in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (1996) 4 SCC 647 : AIR 1996 SC 2054 ]” 18. The High Court, however, relying upon Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 ] opined: “This issue raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh wherein Their Lordships held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 all insurance policies covering third-party risks are not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in the vehicles though the vehicle is of any type or class. Following the same, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 19. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. 20. In this case, the High Court had proceeded on the basis that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs. 20 as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed.” 16. 20 as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed.” 16. In the present case, Section 147 as originally existed in 1988 Act is applicable and, accordingly, the judgment of this Court in Asha Rani is fully attracted. The High Court was clearly in error in reviewing its judgment and order delivered on 09.11.2010 in review petition filed by the claimant by applying Section 147(1)(b)(i). The High Court committed grave error in holding that Section 147(1)(b)(i) takes within its fold any liability which may be incurred by the insurer in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person. The High Court also erred in holding that the claimant was travelling in the vehicle in the course of his employment since he was a spare driver in the vehicle although he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time but he was directed to go to the worksite by his employer. The High Court erroneously assumed that the claimant died in the course of employment and overlooked the fact that the claimant was not in any manner engaged on the vehicle that met with an accident but he was employed as a driver in another vehicle owned by M/s. P.L. Construction Company. The insured (owner of the vehicle) got insurance cover in respect of the subject goods vehicle for driver and cleaner only and not for any other employee. There is no insurance cover for the spare driver in the policy. As a matter of law, the claimant did not cease to be a gratuitous passenger though he claimed that he was a spare driver. There is no insurance cover for the spare driver in the policy. As a matter of law, the claimant did not cease to be a gratuitous passenger though he claimed that he was a spare driver. The insured had paid premium for one driver and one cleaner and, therefore, second driver or for that purpose ‘spare driver’ was not covered under the policy.” Thus, the insurance company is not liable to compensate for the injury or death caused to the unauthorised passengers travelling in goods vehicle unless they are owner of the goods or his authorized representatives and in the present case, the deceased does not fall under this position, rather he is an unauthorised passenger as determined by the learned Tribunal. 16. Therefore, it is seen that the accident took place on 28.02.1995, after the amendment to Section 147 had been made, which stipulated for the liability for the injury caused to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle, however, the term “any person” has been clarified vide the Amendment made in the year 1994, which does not include passengers in a goods vehicle. The law laid down in 2002 in the case of Asha Rani (supra) has clearly established a principle that “any person” must only be attributed to having regard in context to ‘third party’ and not otherwise and in the present case, the learned Tribunal has determined the deceased to be an unauthorised passenger who is not covered within the ambit of third party and therefore, any injury caused to him or for his death, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 17. Accordingly and in view of above, while respectfully following the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2002 in the case of Asha Rani (supra), the judgment and award dated 22.06.2002 impugned passed by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation, deserves interference. 18. Accordingly, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 insurance company is allowed. The judgment and award impugned dated 22.06.2002 to the extent of holding the appellant/non-claimant No.3 insurance company liable to pay compensation, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 18. Accordingly, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant/non-claimant No.3 insurance company is allowed. The judgment and award impugned dated 22.06.2002 to the extent of holding the appellant/non-claimant No.3 insurance company liable to pay compensation, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. It is clarified that the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant, if disbursed to the claimants, the appellant would be at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of insured truck number RJ-19-G-1343. No costs. Record be sent back.