JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal is at the instance of the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment dated 18.12.1992 passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Ist Addl. District Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the compensation case in part and the appellant was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal that on 8.2.1988 at about 3.45 p.m. Pachai Hessa (deceased) was returning from Hat Camaharia to his house at village Mata Guru (Jhinkpani). As there was no bus available in the said route and, therefore, the deceased boarded the truck bearing No. BRS 5303 owned by Basant Kumar Agarwal. There were also about 20 other persons boarded on the said truck. The driver of the truck, who was in drunken state started driving rashly and negligently and lost his balance and dashed against a tree, as a result of which the passengers were thrown away and Pachai Hessa sustained severe injuries resulting his death. Accordingly, the case was registered at the police station. It is also claimed that the deceased was working as a Laboratory Boy under A.C.C. Jhinkpani and at the time of accident he was only earning member of the family and accordingly the claim case was filed for a compensation of Rs. three lakhs. 3. In course of trial, witnesses were examined. Some documents were also filed, after having heard both parties, the trial Court passed the judgment impugned allowing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to the claimant by the appellant Insurance Company. 4. One cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. has also been filed on behalf of the owner of the truck (respondent No. 5) claiming therein that the appellant/Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability as the interim compensation which was allowed by the Court below is in respect of no fault. It is also stated that since the delinquent vehicle was insured validly at the relevant time, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to made third party risk and, therefore, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the learned Tribunal committed gross error in allowing the interim compensation of Rs. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the learned Tribunal committed gross error in allowing the interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 92A of the M.V. Act, when the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same, as policy of the delinquent truck did not cover the risk for death or injury to the passengers. It is also argued that though the Court below specifically held in his judgment that the policy of the truck in question does not cover the risk relating to death or injury of passengers but even then allowed interim compensation, which is illegal and fit to be set aside. The learned counsel also relied upon the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jethu Ram and Ors., reported in 1998(2) TAC 805(SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 submitted that he is not the owner of the truck in question and he is not liable to pay compensation as the truck in question was duly insured under the policy of appellant. 7. Some facts are admitted which are to be mentioned, at this stage, i.e. the deceased actually boarded the truck as being a passenger. The driver was also under drunken state and he was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner resulting the accident. The trial Court also concluded that the truck in question was meant for carrying on goods and there was nothing stipulation in the policy relating to the death or injury to the passengers carried in the truck. The Court also held that the applicants are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 10A of the M.V. Act. Thus, it is clear that the policy under which the delinquent truck was insured under the Oriental Insurance Company did not cover the risk relating to the death or injury to the passengers for which the Insurance/appellant cannot be held to be responsible for the compensation. 8. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Jethu Ram and Ors. Thus, it is clear that the policy under which the delinquent truck was insured under the Oriental Insurance Company did not cover the risk relating to the death or injury to the passengers for which the Insurance/appellant cannot be held to be responsible for the compensation. 8. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Jethu Ram and Ors. (Supra), a similar matter was considered as the interim compensation was paid under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was held as under: "On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions, we do not find anything contained therein which would suggest that the liability which accrues under the provisions of Section 92A has to be borne by the Insurer even of it is ultimately held that under the policy of insurance the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation in question." 9. The truck was a goods carrying vehicle and as such the driver was not authorised to carry any passenger. If a goods carrying vehicle carried a passenger, the same will be unlawful. Under such circumstances any damages either to life or to property of unauthorised passenger carried by the truck has not covered under the policy, when there is no stipulation in the said policy to this effect and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay even the interim compensation. As such, I find that the learned Court below committed error in allowing the interim compensation against the appellant, which is fit to be set aside. 10. In the result, I find merit in this appeal, which is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 18.12.1992 is, hereby, set aside. Cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 5 is also devoid of any merit, which is rejected. 11. Appeal allowed.