S. T. KHARCHE, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties finally.

( 2 ) THIS appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself because the question of law that arises for consideration is, whether the Insurances Company is liable in a case where the death occurs by travelling in a goods vehicle ?

( 3 ) MR. Pophaly, learned Counsel, for the appellant/insurance Company contended that the accident occurred on 5-2-1993 at about 1-30 p. m. at village Sukli. The deceased female child Swati of the age of 11 years was travelling by sitting on the mud guard of the motor vehicle, i. e. tractor bearing registration No. MH-27/a-2354 owned by respondent No. 4 and driven by respondent No. 3.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the decisions of Supreme court in (New India Assurance Com. Ltd. v. Asha Rani), 2003 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)765 : A. I. R. 2002 S. C. W. 5259, (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar), 2003 (3) T. A. C. 273 (S. C.) and (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda ready), 2003 (5) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)386 : A. I. R. 2003 S. C. W. 513.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that since the insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, the same may not be compelled to first pay to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of (National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur), 2004 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)578 : 2004 (2) S. C. C. 1 and in support of this contention he relied on the recent decision of Apex court in (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma), 2005 (2) t. A. C. 1 (S. C.), wherein it has been made clear that the claimants would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation granted in their favour by the motor Accident Claims Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 supported the judgment and contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant/ insurance Company. He also contended that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the Insurance Company would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants and no interference into the same is warranted and the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

( 7 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In Asha Rani's case, 2003 (3) bom. C. R. (S. C.)765 : 2002 A. I. R. S. C. W. 5259, cited (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the question as to whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased travelling in a goods vehicle, has observed in Paras 9 and 29 as under :

"in 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 its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994, it was necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised 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 authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amended Act of 1994 is examined, particularly section 46 of Act 6 of 1991 by which expression injury to any person' in the original Act stood substituted by the expression injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised 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 't