Judgment S. D. Anand, J. 1. The present F. A. O. is by the insurer calling into question the validity of the finding recorded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) under issue No.2 to the effect that the liability of the appellant and also the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation would be joint and several, though the appellant insurer would be entitled to recover that amount from the insured. That finding stems from the view recorded by Claims tribunal to the effect that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle by which he was travelling. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as claimants) applied for the award of compensation to the tune of rs.10,00,000 as legal representatives of deceased Nakli Singh alias Nakul Singh who died in the impugned motor vehicular accident on 11.3.1996. As per the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the impugned accident was caused by Hushan Singh, respondent No.7, by driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 37-3859 rashly and negligently on 11.3.1996. The deceased, along with some others, had boarded that Swaraj Mazda vehicle as gratuitous passenger. The vehicle was com mercial in character and was not meant for passenger traffic. 3. Insurer appellant denied the very involvement of the offending vehicle in the impugned accident. It was averred, in that context, that no F. I. R. had been registered against the vehicle. It was further averred that the respondent No.7 was neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor was he holding any driving licence at the time of impugned accident and he also was not in the employment of the insured at the time of impugned accident. 4. At the trial, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.6 before this court, had also denied that the vehicle owned by him was involved in the impugned accident. Insofar as respondent no.7 is concerned, he had denied having anything to do with the offending vehicle at all. He averred that he does not even have any idea about the registered owner of the vehicle. His further plea was that he also does not hold any driving licence at all. Insofar as respondent no.7 is concerned, he had denied having anything to do with the offending vehicle at all. He averred that he does not even have any idea about the registered owner of the vehicle. His further plea was that he also does not hold any driving licence at all. The trial proceeded on the following issues: (1) Whether accident resulting in the death of Nakli Singh alias Nakul Singh, took place due to rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Mazda bearing No. HR 37-3859 on the part of its driver, respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved, then what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled to and from whom? OPP (3) Whether claim petition is not maintainable? OPR (4) Whether driver of offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3 (5) Relief. 5 Issue No.1 was answered in favour of claimants and against all the respondents including the insurer appellant. The finding recorded thereunder was that the impugned accident had been caused by respondent no.7 only by driving the offending vehicle. The entitlement of the claimants to a compensation of Rs.2,35,000 was upheld under issue No.2. The further finding recorded thereunder was that the insurer and also the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle would be jointly and severally liable for paying the amount of compensation, though the insurer would be entitled to effect the recovery of the amount paid by it from the insured. Under that very issue, a finding was recorded that the offending vehicle was commercial in character and was not meant for carrying passengers and that the deceased and some others had boarded it as gratuitous passengers. Issue Nos.3 and 4 were not pressed at the time of the arguments before the tribunal. 6. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant. None put in appearance on behalf of respondents to contest the appeal in spite of service. 7. The only grievance put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal ought not to have recorded a finding on point of joint and several liability, particularly in view of its own finding that the deceased was travelling by the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 7. The only grievance put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal ought not to have recorded a finding on point of joint and several liability, particularly in view of its own finding that the deceased was travelling by the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The learned counsel argued that the view indicated by the Tribunal is contrary to the law of the land. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the plea advocated by the learned counsel and have perused the record. 9. The plea raised merits acceptance. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the offending vehicle was commercial in character. The former part of the finding is apparent from the F. I. R. itself which had been lodged by sudarshan Kumar, sarpanch and one of those who was travelling by the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time; while the latter facet of the finding is apparent from Exh. R2, a cover note produced by the appellant insurer which indicates that the offending vehicle is of Swaraj Mazda make with a gross load of 5920 kg and is a public carrier. Exh. Rl, a copy of the registration certificate of that vehicle, also indicates its commercial character. Both these documents, Exhs. Rl and R2, do not at all indicate any authorisation for the vehicle to carry passengers. 10. A similar matter came up before the honble Apex Court in National Insurance co. Ltd. V/s. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC ). While relying upon new India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Asha rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC); Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. V/s. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 ACJ 468 (SC) and a three-Judge bench ruling of the Honble Apex Court reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), Honble apex Court held that the insurer would not be liable for the death of a gratuitous passenger travelling by a commercial vehicle. Ltd. V/s. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 ACJ 468 (SC) and a three-Judge bench ruling of the Honble Apex Court reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), Honble apex Court held that the insurer would not be liable for the death of a gratuitous passenger travelling by a commercial vehicle. In the course of that ruling, the Honble supreme Court noticed the implication of the 1994 amendment and held that though the owner of the goods (being transported by goods carrier) or its authorised representative would be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to the passengers, especially gratuitous passengers who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid for the extension of benefit of insurance to that category of people. 11. In view of the above quoted judicial pronouncements rendered by the Honble apex Court, the view obtained by learned tribunal, holding the insurer as well to be liable (though with a provision of indemnification), is invalidated. The appeal filed by the insurer appellant shall stand allowed to the extent indicated above. The other part of the award shall stand upheld. In view of the invalidation indicated above, it is only the driver and the registered owner-respondents who would be liable to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The other part of the order passed by Tribunal qua interest, etc. , shall stand upheld. Appeal allowed.