By the Court.—Shri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Sumaiya Kidvai holding brief of Shri Anand Mohan learned counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 5 and Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal learned counsel appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 4.

2. Instant appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been preferred against the impugned award dated 6.5.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim petition No. 97 of 1997.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In brief, deceased Kamlesh Kumar( husband of Smt. Munni Devi) was traveling in truck No. U.P. 34-A-7952 alongwith his goods (vegetables), which he has purchased from whole sale market (mandi). There were other persons traveling in the truck alongwith their goods. At about 4.15 p.m. when the truck reached on Barbat Jahani Marg, because of rash and negligent driving on the part of petitioner the truck turned turtle into the ditch of road side. In consequence thereof serious injury caused to the persons who were traveling alongwith their goods including Kamlesh Kumar. An FIR was lodged and wife of the deceased Smt. Munni Devi, Son Ravindra, daughter Veena devi and Sheela Devi preferred a claim petition. The tribunal had framed the following issues while adjudicating the controversy :

(1) Whether on 6.4.1997 at 4.15 pm in the evening on Barbat Jahani Khera Marg Village Maksoodpur Police Station Pasigavan district kheri, because of the negligence of driver of vehicle No. U.P. 34 A/7952 the accident occurred in consequence thereof Kamlesh Kumar sustained injuries and succumb to it?

(2) Whether Kamlesh Kumar was traveling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger. In case, Yes, then its effect?

(3) Whether the driver of the vehicle No. U.P. 34 A/7952 was having valid driving licence ?

(4) Whether at the time of accident the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company ?

(5) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled from which party?

(6) Any other relief?

4. The tribunal had granted opportunity to parties to lead evidence and arrived to the conclusion that the deceased was gratuitous passenger. Though he was traveling alongwith goods but he is not entitled for compensation being gratuitous passenger. Though the tribunal had recorded a finding that vehicle was insured and driver was having licence but the insurance company (respondents) was not liable to pay compensation. The tribunal had fasten the liability and decreed the petition against the respondent owner. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned award the present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant had invited attention to the Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, (in short hereinafter referred as the Act) which was amended by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Under sub-section 1(b) of Section 147 of the Act, the legislature to their wisdom had added the word “injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle”. For convenience, Sub-Section 1 of Section 147 is reproduced as under :

“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; or

(b) insurer 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 1[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 vehi