Miscellaneous Appeal no. 336 of 2003 **** Against the judgment, dated 28th May, 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge III-cum-Accident Claim Tribunal, Khagaria, in M.V. Claim Case No. 28 of 1999 **** The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Mahatma Gandhi Road, Khagaria (Insurer of Vehicle No. BRI/9593) .. Opposite Party/Appellant Versus 1. Shameena @ Sabina Khatoon, w/o late Ghyas @ Riyaz, r/o village and P.O. Kulharia, P.S. Parbatta, district Khagaria 2. Bibi Sayeeda Khatoon, w/o Md. Faheed 3. Md. Mustaque, minor son of Md. Faheed, aged about 10 years, under the guardianship of Md. Faheed, his father, natural guardian and next friend, r/o village and P.O. Kulharia, P.S. Parbatta, district Khagaria .. Claimants/Respondents 4. Anuj Kumar, s/o Rajendra Prasad, Mohalla Bapoo Nagar, Baluahi, P.S. and district Khagaria (owner of vehicle No. BR-I/9599) .. Opposite Party no. 2/Respondent 5. Umesh Prasad Yadav, s/o late Lalo Prasad Yadav, r/o village Morkahim P.S. Khagaria, district Khagaria (Driver of vehicle no. BR-I/9599) .. Opposite Party no. 3/Respondent **** For the appellant .. M/S Ram Chandra Lal Das & Ashok Kumar, Advs. For the respondent .. **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 28th May, 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge III-cum- 2 Accident Claim Tribunal, Khagaria, in M.V. Claim Case No. 28 of 1999 by which he has granted the claim of the claimants and directed to the insurance company to pay the claim amount decided by the Tribunal. 3. The claim petition was filed on the ground that the deceased, Ghyas @ Riyaz, died in an accident in a 407 Tata Truck bearing registration no. BRI – 9599 while carrying banana from Khagaria to Darbhanga, he was also traveling in the same truck. When the truck reached village Teghra in the district of Begusarai, the truck over turned in which Ghyas died on the spot. The claimant is the wife of the deceased. The claim petition was allowed holding that since the deceased was traveling on the truck, the goods vehicle with the goods, banana as the owner of the goods, and, hence, liable for compensation from the insurer under section 147 (B)(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, hence, was a gratuitous passenger. The heir of Ghyas @ Iliyas was claiming for compensation on the ground that victim was traveling in the vehicle as owner of the banana on the bus and since the vehicle was insured, the insurance company is liable to pay the claim. 4. The appellant is the insurance company and the only grievance raised that since the deceased was travelling on the truck, a goods vehicle, and, hence, was a gratuitous passenger and is not entitled to any claim from the insurance company and, further, submitted that unless an extra payment made for the gratuitous passenger by the owner the insurance company is not liable to pay and order by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the amount is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the appellant, 3 however, has relied upon a decision reported in 2004(1) I.A.C.,420 (S.C.), which is also reported in A.I.R. 2004, Patna, 212 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Baljit Kaur & Ors.). 5. However, no one appeared either on behalf of owner or the claimants. 6. The question for consideration whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 7. The admitted position is that Ghyas @ Iliyas had hired the truck for carrying his banana from Khagaria to Darbhanga and so travelling on the truck with banana loaded on the truck as owner of banana as he was indulged in the business of banana and the question is whether he was gratuitous passenger or was traveling as owner of the good loaded on truck and, hence, liable for the compensation from the insurance company. 8. However, the Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle and was travelling as the owner of the goods, i.e., banana which was loaded on the truck for which he had hired the truck and relied upon decision reported in 2003(1) P.L.J.R., 213 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Asha Rani & Ors.), Full Bench decision, which considered the provision of law after amendment of Act 1994 and held that under amended Section 147 insurer will not be liable to pay compensation to the owner of the goods if it‟s authorized representative on being carried on the goods vehicle when the vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or it‟s representative dies or suffer any fatal injury, however, 4 after the insertion of the amended Act 1994 the expression “including owner of the goods or it‟s authorized representative carried in the vehicle” has been interpreted that it clearly demonstrate 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 goods vehicle the owner of the goods or it‟s authorized representative being carried in goods vehicle. However, in this direction paragraph 9 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted : “9 – Satpal’s case (supra) the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to the 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. If the Motor Vehicle Amended Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46 of Act 6 of 1991 (sic – 54 of 1994 ?) by which expression „injury to any person‟ in the original Act stood substituted by the expression „injury to any person including owner of the 5 goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle‟ the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid amendment Act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression „to any person‟ it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also states that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include 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 lay by way of amplification and clarification of any 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 authorized representative carried in the vehicle‟ which was added to the pre-existed 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 6 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 is 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 authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.” 9. However, having established the position in law that after amendment of Act 1994 the owner or the representative of the owner of goods while travelling on the truck or goods vehicle shall not be a gratuitous passenger and shall be covered according to amendment Act o 1994 in Section 147. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon decision reported in 2004 A.I.R. S.C.W., 212 (M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Baljit Kaur & Ors.). However, this is a case in which the deceased was travelling on the goods vehicle not as an owner of goods, but, as a passenger and, hence, it was held that he was a gratuitous passenger as is not covered under the Act and it was interpreted that amendment, including owner of the goods or is authorized representative “added by amendment Act 1994 can not mean or be taken to mean that it includes gratuitous passenger” 7 and, hence, the decision relied is of no help to appellant, but, to the other side the law is well settled that the owner or the goods or it‟s authorized representative while carrying on the vehicle along with the goods can not be placed in the category of gratuitous passenger and is well being covered under the Act and the insurance company is liable to pay the claimants, the heirs of the deceased, for the death of the owner of the goods and, hence, the decision reported in 2004(1) I.A.C. 420 (S.C.) (M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Baljit Kaur & Ors.) = 2004 A.I.R. S.C.W., 212 (M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Baljit Kaur & Ors.)is not applicable to the fact or for the ratio that owner of the goods is not liable to claim compensation from the insurance company or the Tribunal is not liable to order for payment for the death of owner of the goods traveling on the goods vehicle along with the goods and, hence, I do not find any merit in this Appeal. 10. This Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 25th day of August, 2010, N.A.F.R./Cp:3/S.A.