ORDER

1. The petitioners herein filed an application for grant of special leave questioning the legality of the judgment and order dated 3-10-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the respondents herein from a judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal being IVth Additional District Judge, East Godavari District was allowed.

2. The fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. One Sri Bommithi Kondala Rao since deceased, was travelling in a lorry bearing Registration No. AIK 4005 on 5-11-1995. The said lorry met with an accident resulting in death of the said Sri Bommithi Kondala Rao. On a claim application filed by the heirs of the said deceased, the IVth Additional District Judge, East Godavari District awarded compensation for the death of the said Sri Bommithi Kondala Rao for a sum of Rs 1,30,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, however, was of the opinion that the appellant herein was not liable to pay the said amount of compensation as the deceased was travelling in a lorry as a gratuitous passenger. The said award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims c Tribunal came to be questioned before the High Court which, as noticed hereinabove, was reversed by the High Court relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh1.

3. The petitioner herein filed a special leave petition before this Court which was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10-4-2003. The petitioner herein thereafter filed a review petition in terms of d Article 137 of the Constitution drawing this Courts attention to a three-Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani2 wherein the decision of this Court in Satpal Singhl was overruled. The same Division Bench in terms of its order dated 5-8-2003 directed issuance of notice in the review application stating:

"The notice to indicate also as to why in the light of a notice said to have been ordered in SLPs (C) Nos. 7149 of 2003, 6895 of 2003, etc. and 6916 of 2003, the order dated 10-4-2003 dismissing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5628 of 2003 cannot be recalled and the matter directed to be posted along with the other pending matters."

4. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, a notice was directed to be issued. Nobody has appeared despite service of notice. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the order of this Court dated 10-4-2003 dismissing the special leave petition summarily should be recalled. The review petition, therefore, is allowed.

5. Leave granted.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the fact that the decision of this Court in Asha Raniz the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The learned counsel appears to be correct.

7. In Asha Rani2 this Court while overruling Satpal Singh1 has clearly held that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation for death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle.

8. Asha Rani2 was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy3. Yet again, the said view was upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar4.

9. The question again came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court, of which we are members, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur5 wherein upon considering the effect of amendment carried out in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, it was opined: (SCC pp. 7-8, paras 17-20)

"17. By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his auth