YATINDRA SINGH, VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, JJ. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 16th July, 2007 passed by m. A. C. T/additional District Judge, Court No. 6 bareilly, in M. A. C. P. No. 98of 2005 (Smt. Nasreen and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another), whereby award for a sum of rs 2,95,000/-has been granted forthe death of Ghasita and Insurance Company (appellant) has been directed to pay the entire amount of the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from owner of the vehicle. ( 2 ) CLAIM petition under Section 163-A of motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act)was filed by the wife, son and mother of ghasita (the deceased), who died in the accident. In the petition it was alleged that deceased was travelling in truck No. U. P. 34-C/8009 (hereinafter to be referred as offending vehicle) with his cattle from Revsa towards Rampur. The truck collided with a tree on 12th December 2004 at about 4. 00 a. m. due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. The deceased sustained serious injuries in the accident and died instantaneously. Many cattle which were loaded in the truck, were also died. ( 3 ) THE appellant-defendant field written statement and denied the allegations of petition. It was further averred that the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident and since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, the insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 4 ) THE truck owner Mohd. Imtiyaz also filed written statement in which happening of the accident on 12th December, 2004 at about 4. 00 a. m. was admitted, but it was averred that the driver of truck was not negligent and accident occurred in saving Neelgai, which all of sudden came in front of the vehicle. It was further averred that offending vehicle was insured with Oriental insurance Company and driver was having valid licence at the time of accident. ( 5 ) IN orderto prove theircase, the claimants examined Smt. Nasreen (wife of deceased)as P. W. 1 and Samshad Ahmad (eye-witness of the accident) as P. W. 2. The owner of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company did not examine any witness. ( 5 ) IN orderto prove theircase, the claimants examined Smt. Nasreen (wife of deceased)as P. W. 1 and Samshad Ahmad (eye-witness of the accident) as P. W. 2. The owner of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company did not examine any witness. The Tribunal below after taking entire evidence into consideration, awarded compensation as mentioned in para 1 directing the appellant/ defendant to pay the amount of award to the claimants and to recover the same from owner of offending vehicle. Hence this appeal. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant on admission of appeal and perused the impugned judgment carefully. ( 7 ) THERE is no permission under section 170 of the Act and as such the appellant-defendant has no rightto challenge the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. ( 8 ) THE main submission made by learned counsel forthe appellant is thatthe Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in this case, because according to the finding recorded by learned Tribunal below, the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and driver was not having effective driving licence on that date. The contention of Sri Srivastava was that issuing direction by the Tribunal below to the appellant to pay the amount of award to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle is not in accordance with law. For this contention, our attention was drawn towards the case of national Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bomithi subbhayamma and others. ( 9 ) WE agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle in instant case, because as per findings recorded by learned Tribunal below in the impugned judgment, the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, which is goods carriage. It is now settled law that the insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for the death or injury to gratuitous passenger carried in goods carriage. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of New India Insurance company Ltd. v. Vedwati and others also. ( 10 ) NOW the question arise as to whether this Court will be justified to make interference in the impugned judgment. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of New India Insurance company Ltd. v. Vedwati and others also. ( 10 ) NOW the question arise as to whether this Court will be justified to make interference in the impugned judgment. Motor Vehicles act is a social welfare legislation, he object of which is to give relief to the victims of accident. In instant case, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of accident. The Tribunal below has given right to the appellant to recover the amount of award from the owner of the off ending vehicle after making payment to the claimants. In our view this order of the Tribunal below is not unjustified. The Honble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaroopa and other, has held that the insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of gratuitous passenger travelling in goods vehicle and if the compensation has been paid by Company, the same may be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment by this Court is not warranted, because after making payment of the amount of award to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal below, the appellant can recoverthe entire amount from the owner of the offending vehicle underthe provision of section 174 of the Act. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. . .