HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M A. No. 2969 of 2003 O R D E R: The Insured/Claimant is the appellant herein. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in OP No. 544 of 2001 by Award dated 04-04-2003 awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the insured as against driver and owner of the accident vehicle and not against its Insurer. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this appeal contending that the lower Tribunal should have awarded compensation against the Insurance company also and that quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 2. In so far as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is quite just and reasonable having regard to injuries sustained by the injured. The injured did not lead any medical evidence in proof of Ex.A6 disability certificate by examining the Doctor. No doctor from Siddhardha Hospital, which is a private hospital is examined. Therefore, I do not propose to disturb the finding as to quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Tribunal. The accident in this case took place on 25-06-2001 which is subsequent to Amending Act 54 of 2004 coming into force on 14.11.1994 amending Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) and introducing a new provision by way of Section 147(1)(b)(i) fastening legal liability to the insurer with the risk of owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. 3. In this case, the injured/PW1 was travelling in the accident van bearing No. AP 15 T 8670 from Godavarikhani to Hyderabad along with empty tins to sell them at Hyderabad. PW1 says that he took the van on hire to transport empty tins for Rs.2500/- and that when the van reached outskirts of Rimmanaguda on Rajiv Rahadari, the driver drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed a tree. The lower Tribunal also did not dispute the said evidence. The lower Tribunal also came to the conclusion that PW1 was travelling in the accident vehicle as owner of goods. But the lower Tribunal disallowed the petitioner’s claim as against the Insurance Company by citing several case law on the subject prior to and after Amending Act 54 of 1994 and landed in erroneous conclusion out of confusion. In my opinion, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani [1] of the Supreme Court of India is holding the field subsequent to amendment to the Act which took place in the year 1994. It was held therein: “ 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 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 Satpal’s 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.” In that view of the matter, the Insurance Company namely, the 3rd respondent herein cannot avoid its liability in this case. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs to the effect that the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is also liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the lower Tribunal along with the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 19-11-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2003 ACJ 1