JUDGMENT :-First respondent filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 seeking compensation of Rs.80,000/- from respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant alleging that when he was travelling in the lorry belonging to the second respondent being driven by the third respondent, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, resulting in injuries to him and others. 2. Second respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by the third respondent, contending that he was transporting sand from Krishna River to Kolanukonda and that the first respondent clandestinely boarded the lorry at a speed breaker and that though he was driving cautiously as the road was narrow and the soil was loose the lorry skidded and overturned, but some of the coolies, who were sleeping on the sand, did not receive injuries, but the first respondent, who managed to get into the lorry without his knowledge, seems to have suffered injuries, due to his jumping down from the vehicle and, so he is not liable to pay any compensation. 3. Appellant, who is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, filed a separate counter countending that inasmuch as, the first respondent was travelling in a goods vehicle as a passenger, it is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. In support of his case, the first respondent (claimant) examined himself as PW1, the doctor as PW2, and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The Tribunal held that the first respondent is entitled to Rs.50,500/- towards compensation and passed an award for that amount with interest at 12% per annum against respondents 2 and 3 and also the appellant, disbelieving the contention of the third respondent that the first respondent got into the lorry without his knowledge as the evidence on record shows that the first respondent was travelling in the cabin and the evidence of the first respondent, as PW 1, shows that he paid Rs.2/- to the third respondent to travel in the lorry, and so on the basis of the decisions of this Court that the persons travelling in the goods vehicle as paid passengers are entitled to compensation from the insurer. 5. Questioning the award making it liable for compensation, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident preferred this appeal. 6. 5. Questioning the award making it liable for compensation, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident preferred this appeal. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that inasmuch as the first respondent was held to be travelling as a paid passenger in a goods vehicle, and since EX.B 1 policy issued by the appellant does not cover passengers travelling in the lorry, the Tribunal erred in passing an award against the appellant also. 7. The Apex Court in Mallawwa and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (1999) 1 SCC 403 :: 1999 (1) ALD (SCSN) 2, held that persons travelling in goods vehicles, whether as owners of the goods or passengers on payment of fare or gratuitous passengers, who died in accident met with by such goods vehicle, are not covered by proviso (ii) to Section 95(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and so the insurer of a goods vehicle is not liable to pay compensation for the death of those passengers. 8. Since the first respondent was held to be travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle by the Tribunal and since finding became final in view of the ratio in Mallawwas case (supra), and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and others, 2003 (1) ALD 18 (SC), the appellant cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the first respondent and so the award passed against the appellant is liable to be and hence is set aside and the claim petition against the appellant stands dismissed without costs in the Tribunal. 9. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in appeal.