The main legal point established in the judgment is that an Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured or pay the award amount if the deceased was traveling as a passenger in violation of the provisions of the route permit, based on the interpretation of Section 147 of the 1988 Act.

V.K. Gupta, C.J.—Since the common question of law is involved for adjudication in these two appeals, both are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the appeals have been filed by the Insurance Companies-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act, for short) against the awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals awarding compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the appellants-Insurance Companies. Whereas in FAO (MVA) No. 275 of 1993 award dated 22nd July, 1993 passed in MAC Case No. 4-S/2 of 1990 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, is under challenge, in FAO (MVA) No. 156 of 1993, award dated 14th January, 1999 passed in MACT No. 91-S/2 of 1993 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, is under challenge.

3. In both the cases the deceased were travelling in trucks, in both the cases they, on the own showing of the claimants-respondents, were travelling in the trucks as owners of the goods being carried in the respective trucks. In both the cases the accidents occurred after July 1989, i.e. the date of the enforcement of 1988 Act and before 1994, i.e., the date of amendment of Section 147 of 1988 Act. Whereas in FAO (MVA) No. 275 of 1993 the accident in question occurred on 12th August, 1989 in FAO (MVA) No.156 of 1999, the accident occurred on 9th August, 1993. In both the cases the appellants-Insurance Companies had taken specific plea before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals that since the deceased were travelling as passengers in trucks and since this amounted to violation of the policy conditions, in terms of Section 147 of the 1988 Act, the appellants-Insurance Companies were not liable to indemnify the insured-owners of the trucks, nor were they liable to pay the award amounts.

4. Whether an Insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of a deceased passenger, while the deceased passenger was travelling in a goods vehicle that met with an accident on account of which he died, even though is the common question of law involved for consideration, interpretation and adjudication in both these appeals, it can now clearly be said that this question is no more res integra, based as it is upon the interpretation of Section 147 of 1988 Act, to a fact situation as it stood prior to its amendment in 1994 because of the authoritative pronouncement by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others, 2003 ACJ1. Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of 1988 Act, as it stood before its amendment in 1994 which alone is relevant for our consideration, read as under:— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place."

5. The following observations made in Asha Rani (supra), interpreting the expression "any person" as used in Section 147(1)(b)(i) (supra) are apposite and I quote :— "9. In Satpals case, 2000 ACJ1 (SC), 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 not 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 (Amendment) Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46 of Act 54 of 1994 by which expression injury to any person in the original Act stood substituted by the expression injury t