HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A. No. 2835 of 2003 O R D E R: The Insurance Company is the appellant. Aggrieved by Award dated 5-3-2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- II Addl. District Judge, West Godavri District at Eluru in OP No.448 of 1998 granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants for death of the deceased Jammu Nageswara Rao in a road accident on 14-6-1992, this appeal is filed. The lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling in the accident lorry/goods vehicle as owner of goods being transported therein. 2. The only point urged by the appellant’s counsel is based on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that prior to amendment to Section 147 of the Act in the year 1994 by amending Act 54 of 1994 which came into effect on 14-11-1994, there is no liability on the part of the insurer to indemnity the insured covering risk of owner of goods travelling in the goods vehicle. In this case, there is no dispute that Ex.B1 Insurance Policy issued by the appellant does not cover risk of persons travelling in the goods vehicle in the insured goods vehicle muchless owner or representative of owner of goods being transported in the said vehicle. No specific premium was paid covering risk of such persons by the insured in this case. Therefore, there is no specific contract of insurance between the insured and the insurer for indemnification of liability to any compensation by the insured for death of owner of goods traveling in the goods vehicle. Therefore, one has to fall back on provisions of the Act to find whether there is any legal liability attached to the insurer to cover risk of owner of goods travelling in the goods vehicle. Prior to 14.11.1994 when the Amendment Act came into force, Sec. 147(1) of the Act does not cover risk of owner of goods or representative of owner of goods travelling in the lorry. It is only by the amending Act 54 of 1994 clause (i) of Sub-section (1)(b) of 147 of the Act was added fastening legal liability for the insurer covering risk of owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. 3. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Asha Rani [1] the Supreme Court held that it’s earlier Judgment rendered in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SATPAL SINGH [2] was not correctly decided and further held that prior to the amendment Act 54 of 1994 even if widest interpretation is given to the expression “any person” it will not cover either owner of goods or his authorized representative being carried in the vehicle. In that view of the matter, when the accident in this case took place on 14-6-1992 prior to the amending Act 54 of 1994 and when no specific premium was paid covering risk of owner of goods or his authorized representative being carried in the lorry, the appellant insurance company cannot be fastened with liability in this case. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside that portion of the award passed by the lower Tribunal in so far as the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 19-11-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2003 ACJ 1 [2] 2000 ACJ 1 (SC)