JUDGMENT 1. - The question of importance that arises in all these four 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. RSL 9917 duly insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 1 herein. The appellant herein was covered by the insurance policy for a period from 19.7.1989 until 18.7.1990. 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 16.6.1990 resulting in the death of Pappu alias Lala, Raghuvir, Kamla and Dhuri. Four claim petitions were filed by the dependants of the aforesaid four deceased persons. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karauli allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation mention-id in the judgment to the claimants. The learned Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and fixed the liability upon the appellant to pay the aforesaid compensation. Hence these appeals. 3. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that vehicle in question was insured against the third party risk and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation jointly with the appellants. 4. Mr. P.S. Shukla, the 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 Section 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 carnage as passenger whether as hirer or otherwise. Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel placed reliance on D.B. judgment of Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Irawwa, 1992 ACJ 918 (Karnataka) . 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. v. Kamlaben, 1993 ACJ 673 (Gujarat) , 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. 6. Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben, 1993 ACJ 673 (Gujarat) , 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 v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) , 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 company could not have been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents. In the light of Sohan Lal Passi's case, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and New India Assurance Company's case, 1993 ACJ 673 (Gujarat) , the view expressed by the D.B. of the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Company's case, 1992 ACJ 918 (Karnataka) , cannot be accepted. 9. Consequently, all the four appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment is modified and it is directed that the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1, is jointly liable with the appellant to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants-respondents. Costs easy. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.Appeals allowed. *******