( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises from the judgment and award dated 12. 7. 94 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,800 with cost and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation payable by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal is the appellant in this present appeal.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the appellant only one contention has been raised that the learned tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company with reference to the death caused in the accident particularly when the deceased person was a passenger in the jeep covered by the 'act policy'. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in not seeing the insurance covered jeep bearing No. MGR 7095 only for third party risk, i. e. , the 'act policy' which covers only liability for third party and it does not cover the liability of the occupants in the jeep.

( 3 ) WE have applied our mind to the above contention raised on behalf of the appellant. It will be appropriate to refer and quote section 147 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, as quoted hereinafter:"section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: provided that a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. "

( 4 ) THE contention, as has been advanced in this case, was earlier raised before one of us in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rasheeda, 1998 ACJ 1404 (Karnataka ). Later on it appears such a question and contention has arisen in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), in which such a contention has been rejected by their Lordships in the Apex Court. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote relevant passage from the following two decisions. (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rasheeda, 1998 ACJ 1404 (Karnataka), this court after referring to provisions of section 95 of old Motor Vehicles Act and section 147 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to the decision of the Supreme court in Pushpabai's