Judgment :- Common Judgment: (K. Govindarajan, J.) The Insurance Company filed the above appeals. Since the facts are common in all the cases, we are inclined to deal with the same in common judgment. 2. On 06.5.2002, the claimants traveled in a goods vehicle along with the goods, namely, 25 Kgs. Of rice and 5 Kgs. Of Dhal and adoration articles to celebrate the family deity festival from Anumantheertham towards Uthangarai in a Tempo bearing Registration No. Tamil Nadu-55 – 8759 belonging to the first respondent. The above said fact is mentioned as set out in the claim petitions. It is not in dispute that the second respondent in the appeals is the owner of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is an insurer of the said vehicle. We need not deal with the finding regarding negligence as no dispute is raised before us with regard to the same. 3. The Tribunal, only on the basis that the claimants traveled in the goods vehicle namely, Tempo, along with their goods, held that the appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation following the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Ahsa Rani And Others (2003 ACJ 1). 4. We heard the arguments of both counsel carefully. 5. There is no dispute regarding the finding on the accident and the negligence. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle is covered only under “Act only policy” issued by the appellant Company. The accident had occurred on 6.5.2002. It is beneficial to extract the statement made in the Claim Petition regarding the purpose for which the vehicle was taken, which reads as under: “On 06.5.2002, at about 11.15 hours the petitioner and her villagers were traveling along with the Goods i.e., 25 Kgs. of rice and five Kgs. of Dhal and adoration articles to celebrate the family deity festival from Anumantheertham towards Uthangarai in Tempo bearing Registration No. TN-55–8759 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent was driven by its driver one Thiruvenkadam rashly and negligently, without any due care to the rules of the road”. Even P.W.1 in his chief examination has stated as follows: 6. Even P.W.1 in his chief examination has stated as follows: 6. From the above pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the main intention to hire the vehicle was only to carry the passengers including the claimants and along with them, they took 25 Kgs. of rice and 5 Kgs. of Dhal and adoration articles. No evidence is available on record to establish the ownership of the said goods with respect to the individual claimant. All the claimants are claiming as if they traveled along with the said goods. The Tribunal simply relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Asha Rani’s case to make the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation merely because the claimants traveled in the tempo with some goods. The said judgment was on the basis of the amendment made in Section 147(1)(b) of the Act, according to which, the Insurance Company should indemnify the insured even under “Act only Policy” if any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle sustained injury. It cannot be said that carrying of the passengers in a goods vehicle is totally prohibited. But if the predominant intention of the claimants to hire the goods vehicle is not to carry the goods but to travel in large number with negligent quantity of goods, the ‘Act only Policy’ does not cover the risk and the Insurance Company is not bound to indemnify the insured against any liability to pay compensation. The conclusion is arrived at only on the basis that the goods vehicle was to carry the goods but not to take the claimants in large number. The risk under ‘Act only Policy’ covers only if the vehicle is hired for carrying the goods and the person / persons traveled along with his / their goods died or sustained injury. 7. The Tribunal has awarded compensation against the Insurance Company only on the ground that the claimants traveled along with the goods. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence and also the intention of the parties regarding the purpose for which the vehicle was hired. 7. The Tribunal has awarded compensation against the Insurance Company only on the ground that the claimants traveled along with the goods. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence and also the intention of the parties regarding the purpose for which the vehicle was hired. It cannot be said that though 30 passengers are allowed to travel in the goods vehicle and they can sustain claim compensation against the Insurance Company on the basis that they have taken very small quantum of goods and that too, nobody can claim exclusive ownership on the same. Moreover, according to Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, even along with goods only six persons are allowed to travel in a goods vehicle. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is set aside insofar as it is against the appellant. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Insurance Company has to be directed to pay compensation to the claimants and they may be directed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation. It is no doubt, in certain cases, directions are given to the Insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants and permitted to recover the same from the owner. In those cases, the Tribunal decided the matter before judgment in Asha Rani’s case and also change of law in the said judgment and also taking into consideration of the delay, such direction was given. But in this case, the Tribunal has decided the issue only on the basis of Asha Rani’s case but applying the same wrongly. So, the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent cannot be countenanced. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The claimants are entitled to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. If any amount is deposited by the appellant, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs.