Virendra Agrawal, V.K. Gupta & A. Chaturvedi, for Respondents Honble SHARMA, J. – The question of importance that arises in all these three appeals is, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to any passenger travelling in a `goods carriage whether as a hirer or otherwise ? (2). The appellant herein was the registered owner of Truck No. RSM 1545 duly insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent herein vide policy Ex D/1 covered for a period from 17.2.1990 until Feb. 16, 1991. The policy was comprehensive in nature covering third party risk. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle of the appellant met with an accident on 11.1.1991 resulting the death of Smt. Keshula and Kalyan Singh. Kishore Singh sustained injuries. Three claim petitions were filed by Hawaldar Singh, the husband of deceased Keshula, Kishan Singh, the injured and the dependents of Kalyan Singh. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Karauli allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 19,075/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively to Hawaldar the husband of Keshuli, Shri Kishore Singh the injured and the dependents of Kalyan Singh vide judgment dated 26.5.1995. The learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and fixed the liability upon the appellant to pay the aforesaid compensation. Hence these appeals. Hawaldar respondent No. 2 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 550 of 1995 also filed cross-objection. (3). The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that vehicle in question was insured, against the third party risk and the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation jointly with the appellant. (4). Mr. Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that under a motor vehicle insurance policy issued by an insurance company in conformity with Sec. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person travelling in a goods carriage as passenger whether as a hirer or otherwise. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel placed reliance on D.B. judgment of Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Irawwa (1). (5). I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. (6). Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in New India Assurance Co. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel placed reliance on D.B. judgment of Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Irawwa (1). (5). I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. (6). Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamlaben & Ors. (2), observed that if the passengers were carried in the goods vehicle by the driver without the knowledge of the insured, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured. (7). Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy (3), was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured. (8). In the case on hand the driver of the truck carried the passengers in the said truck which was goods vehicle, without the knowledge of the appellant. Insurance Company could not prove from the material on record that the insurance policy was violated wilfully by the appellant therefore respondent No. 1 Insurance Co. could not have been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant respondents. In the light of Sohan Lal Passis case (supra) and New India Assurance Companys case (supra) the view expressed by the D.B. of the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co.s case (supra) cannot be accepted. (9). So far as the cross objection filed by the claimant respondent Hawaldar in Misc. Appeal No. 550/95 is concerned, I have scanned the evidence adduced by the parties. Age of deceased Keshula at the time of death was 26 years. The dependency was calculated at Rs. 900/- per month. Havaldar in his statement did not state that he was dependent on the income of his wife Kesula. The learned Tribunal rightly awarded Rs. 1,10,000/- to the claimant respondent Havaldar. (10). Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed and the impugned judg- ment is modified and it is directed that the New India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 1) is jointly liable with the appellant to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants respondents. The cross objection filed by Hawaldar in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 550/1995 stand rejected. Costs easy. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.