JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by Insurance Company praying therein that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No other finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is challenged in this appeal. 2. Counsel for appellant submitted that deceased Rakesh was travelling in a goods vehicle and, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 3. On the other hand counsel for respondents-claimants submitted that the deceased was travelling with his goods in the vehicle therefore, Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Both the counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others reported in 2003 (1) BLJ 1 = (2003) 2 SCC 223 , and counsel for the respondents submitted that since the deceased was travelling with his goods in the vehicle, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. However, both the counsels agreed that it was a transport vehicle. 4. For the purpose of examining that whether the deceased was travelling with his goods. we have to examine the evidence on record. 5. AW 1 Siyaram has deposed that his son with the container filled with milk was travelling in a matador. The deceased was a milk vendor. Since the vehicle overturned. Rakesh died. In para 3 of the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that Rakesh has not paid fare. He paid fare for the milk container. 6. A W 3 Ramsahai has deposed that he was also travelling in the offending matador along with deceased Rakesh. They were carrying milk from Ambah to Morena. He has deposed that he has paid fare of matador and was travelling with the milk. He further clarified that he and Rakesh have not paid their fare but they have paid fare for their respective milk containers. In the cross-examination there is no suggestion to him that they were travelling as a passenger in goods vehicle. On the contrary, in para 5 of cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the matador was collecting milk from the centre of Dugdha Sangh and they were carried to Banmore Dugdha Sangh. The said matador was carrying aluminium containers of milk of Dugdha Sangh. 7. On the contrary, in para 5 of cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the matador was collecting milk from the centre of Dugdha Sangh and they were carried to Banmore Dugdha Sangh. The said matador was carrying aluminium containers of milk of Dugdha Sangh. 7. But the fact remains that all the witnesses have deposed that the have paid fare of the goods and they were travelling along with their goods. In these circumstances, Insurance Company will be liable to indemnif the owner of the vehicle, as held in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (supra). In this case the Court while considering the scope of section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has considered this aspect. In this case, it has been made compulsory to the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. Therefore, since the deceased who was travelling with his goods in a goods vehicle, has died in the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company will be liable to indemnify the owner. In view of the law laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (supra), this appeal has no force and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.