( 1 ) THE only question which falls for determination in both these C. M. As. , is whether the insurer is liable under the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called, the new Act ), as it stood prior to the amendment by Amending Act 54 of 1994, to pay compensation for the death or bodily injury caused to the owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle.

( 2 ) INSURANCE company is the appellant in these two appeals. It filed C. M. A. No. 235 of 1998 questioning the award passed in O. P. No. 267 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur. In this case, one Thanichintala Venkaiah, while travelling in a lorry bearing Registration No. 16t-1832 along with his fish baskets by paying an amount of Rs. 50. 00 as fare from Macheria to Dachepalli, received grievous injuries when the lorry turned turtle in the outskirts of the Macherla. The said accident occurred on 9-12-1991. He, therefore, filed the O. P. under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 90,000. 00. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, other conducting enquiry in accordance with law, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and also the income of the injured, determined a sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 as compensation which was accordingly awarded.

( 3 ) C. M. A. No. 760 of 1999 was filed questioning the award passed in O. P. No. 979 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda. In this case, one Kunareddy Saidamma, who was a vegetable, while travelling in a lorry bearing Registration No. AAQ 2453 from Nagarjuna Sagar to Ramannagudem village along with her kirana goods, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry, the lorry turned turtle and the said Saidamma received grievous injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries. The accident in this case took place on 1-7-1993. The legal representatives of deceased Saidamma, therefore, filed the O. P. under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00. The Tribunal, after conducting elaborate enquiry in accordance with law, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal below having regard to the age of the deceased and her monthly earnings and also taking into account the dependency factor, determined the compensation of Rs. 75,000. 00, which was accordingly awarded.

( 4 ) THE sole contention which is advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-insurance company in both these appeals is that the accidents in these cases took place on 9-12-1991 and 1-7-1993 respectively and the relevant provision that is applicable is Section 147 of the new Act as it stood prior to the amendment by way of Amending Act 54 of 1994; that under the said provisions of Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the new Act, the insurance company is liable only in respect of death or bodily injury to any person who is travelling in a public service vehicle as fare-paid passenger. It is further contended that the word any person occurring in Section 147 (1) (b) (i), does not include any person other than the passengers carried for hire or reward and, therefore, owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle does not fall within the meaning of any person .

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further contends that the language used in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the new Act prior to the amendment and Section 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, old Act ) is identical and there is absolutely no change in the language used in the two provisions. In other words, the pre-amended provision of Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the New Act is the verbatim