JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company and the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant are taken up together. I first propose to deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

2. Present appeal at the instance of the appellant arises out of M.A.C. Petition No.639 of 1988, thereby the claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 75000/- due to injury caused to the claimant arising out of an accident when a Matador Van in which the claimant was travelling along with her husband. The said van due to negligent driving on the part of the driver of Matador had fallen inside a pit resulting in injury of the claimant. Thus, in the accident no other vehicle was involved.

3. The learned Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Matador Van, which was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the claimant suffered injury and on the basis of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was of the view that as the claimant was earning Rs. 700/- a month by way of selling milk and the disability was found to be 22%, it was a fit case of application of multiplier of 15 on the basis of the said income and the extent of disability. The learned Tribunal below treated the age of the claimant to be 45 years.

4. In addition to that amount, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. From the documents produced by the claimant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 16,810/- should be awarded for medical charges and as due to injury she remained an indoor patient for two months, further sum of Rs. 1400/- was awarded towards actual loss of income by taking Rs. 700/- a month to be her income.

5. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 1000/- for rich diet, transport charges, etc. and thus, total amount of compensation came to Rs. 63,330/-.

6. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with present appeal.

7. Mr.Meena, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has taken a pure question of law in support of this appeal. According to Mr.Meena, as admittedly the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle along with her husband and niece wherein her husband was carrying some goods, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddi and others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 339, the Insurance Company cannot have any liability to pay the amount of compensation when the insurance was limited to third party's claim. In other words, according to Mr.Meena, the accident having occurred in the year 1985, in view of the aforesaid decision, the insurer was under no obligation to make payment of the damages suffered to a passenger of such a vehicle in view of the then provision of Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

8. Mr. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant has on the other hand opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr.Meena and has contended that the Tribunal below having decided the matter before pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Devireddy Konda Reddy and others (supra), this Court should not interfere with the aforesaid decision as the Tribunal passed the said award according to the then law of the land.

9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after taking into consideration the decision of Three-Judges-Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Devireddy Konda Reddy and others (supra), I find substance in the contention of Mr.Meena that Insurance Company cannot have any liability in respect of a third party insurance when the claimant was admittedly travelling in the selfsame vehicle as the owner or representative of the owner of the goods. In my view the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will have no application to the facts of the present case as the accident took place prior to coming into oper