JUDGMENT 1. On 22.3.1983. Ram Chandra Prasad @ Ram Chandra Sahu of village Satbarwa, District-Palamau had loaded wooden logs on a truck (BRO-1279) and was himself sitting on its head. He was a vegetable dealer by profession. The said tuck met with an accident, as a result of which he fell down and died on spot. 2. It is not in dispute that truck in question was a goods carrying vehicle and was not to carry passengers. 3. The widow of deceased and others filed claim application, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 wherein by judgment and award dated 23.6.1989, tribunal directed owner of truck, namely, Om Prakash Saraf to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000/-as compensation to them. 4. The owner of truck came to this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 95 of 1989 (R), which was disposed of on 22.4.1997 observing that when First Information Report was different than what has been held by the tribunal and when there was no scope to get any material from records to find out actual status of deceased in the truck, judgment and award dated 22.4.1997 is set aside to that extent alone that deceased was a passenger in the truck and matter was sent back to tribunal to find out status of deceased in the truck at the time of accident, taking into consideration statement made in the First Information Report and evidence to be adduced by parties in this respect. Other findings, which were not challenged in the appeal were kept intact. 5. After remand, claimants examined A.Ws. 6 and 7/A.W. 6 was full brother of the deceased who had lodged First Information Report and A.W. 7 was said to be a bullock cart driver. It was alleged that firstly deceased had loaded wooden logs on his bullock cart and on the way loaded the same on the ill-fated truck, 6. The Tribunal by impugned Judgment dated 22.8,1997 decided that the deceased was a trespasser and there was no contact between him and driver of truck for loading wooden logs and making payment of hire charge. 7. Mr. Lal, counsel for the owner of truck submitted that infact deceased was not a passenger on the truck and had paid the hire charge for wooden logs was himself traveling thereon to ensure safe arrival of his goods. 8. On the other hand. Mr. 7. Mr. Lal, counsel for the owner of truck submitted that infact deceased was not a passenger on the truck and had paid the hire charge for wooden logs was himself traveling thereon to ensure safe arrival of his goods. 8. On the other hand. Mr. Jha, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that without going into the aforesaid question, it can be held that insurer was not liable to pay compensation in case of death of owner of the goods carried on a truck. It was undisputably a goods vehicle and impugned award whereby entire compensation amount has been directed to be paid by owner of the truck is not required to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 9. In this regards reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mallawya etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 589 , wherein it was held that Section 95 (2) (a) deals with goods vehicle and in so far as the person travelling in goods vehicle is concerned, it has confined the liability to the employer only. This is an indicator of the fact that legislature did not have in mind carrying of either the hirer of the vehicle or his employee in the goods vehicle, otherwise Clause (a) would have provided a limit of liability regarding such persons also. Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk of passengers, who are not carried for hire or reward. 10. The insurer of the truck is not liable to take liability of its owner for paying compensation to the claimants under the Act. 11. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.