The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and its amendment by Act 54 of 1994, which clarified the liability of the insurance company in cases involving passengers in goods vehicles.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THE appellant insurance company aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 28. 3. 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in A. A. O. No. 216 of 1997 is in appeal before us.

( 3 ) THE respondents herein are heirs and legal representatives of one V. Gopal. The said V. Gopal (the deceased) used to carry on business in vegetables. He purchased 5 bags of vegetables on 24. 11. 1991 in a village known as Ayyapareddipalem and loaded the same in a trailer of a tractor bearing No. MH 33-8109. He was travelling therein. He wanted to buy some more vegetables at a village known as Peddapadu. While the tractor approached the said village, a bus was seen coming from opposite direction. Because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said tractor and which was driven at a very high speed, it went to the extreme left side of road margin and because of heavy jerks, the deceased fell down and received serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to Peddapadu where he breathed his last.

( 4 ) A claim petition was filed by the respondents herein before the Addl. Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant herein denied and disputed its liability to pay any amount to the respondents by way of compensation, inter alia, on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the said tractor as a paid passenger .

( 5 ) THE learned Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, inter alia, held that carrying the goods, i. e. , vegetables, by the deceased as owner thereof would entitle the applicants to receive compensation from the appellant.

( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal observing that a person who is not a party to contract of insurance would be the third party and in that view of the matter respondents would be entitled to the amount of compensation even if the vehicle was only having third party insurance (Act policy ). It was further held that the Tribunal was empowered to grant compensation over and above the amount claimed. A sum of Rs. 1,53,000 was awarded by way of compensation in favour of the respondents. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from the said judgment and award holding that as the deceased was travelling in the trailer along with his goods being vegetables, it was liable to pay compensation.

( 7 ) MR. P. K. Seth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that as this court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), overruled its earlier decision in new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), holding that the insurance company would not be liable for paying compensation to a passenger in a goods vehicle, whether he was travelling as an owner of the goods when that vehicle meets with an accident, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.

( 8 ) MRS. K. Sharda Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that a tractor is not a goods carriage vehicle and as carrying of vegetables in a tractor would be for agricultural purpose, the appellant cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the amount of compensation.

( 9 ) SECTION 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 is in pari materia with the provisions of section 95 (1) of Motor Vehicles act, 1939. In the year 1994, section 147 was amended by reason of Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14. 11. 1994 in terms whereof the words "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle" were added after the words "against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person".

( 10 ) IN Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), this court overruling its earlier decision in satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), observed:

" (9) In Satpal Singh s case (supra), the court assumed that the provisions of section 95 (1)