RAM MOHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ALL these appeals filed by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle arise out of the common Judgment and award dated 16-3-2005 in MVC Nos. 4321/02 and 493-502/02 on the file of the VII addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT-3, Metropolitan area, Bangalore (SCCH-3), for short the 'mact'. ( 2 ) THE MACT by the common Judgment and award partly allowed the claim petitions of the injured and determined the compensation for injuries sustained by them, in the accident involving the motor vehicle being a lorry bearing certificate of registration No. MYX 7977, driven in a rash and negligent manner: While, so doing the MACT noticed that the claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, nevertheless in the light of the decision in Pramod Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mushtari Begum reported in AIR 2004 SCW 5010 fastened the liability on the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the insured-owner of the vehicle. The insurer aggrieved by the fastening of the liability has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the Judgment of the Apex Court innational Insurance Company Limited vs. Vedawati and Others reported in 2007 (3) SCALE 397 to contend that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the 'act' does not enjoin statutory liability on the owner of the motor vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passengers travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. According to the learned Counsel, the motor vehicle in question is a goods carriage meant to carry goods and not carry passengers. The claimants having travelled in a goods carriage and sustained injuries, it is for the insured to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-insured points out to para 12 of the Judgment in Pramod Kumar's case (supra) to contend that the appellant should pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner without filing a suit. According to the learned Counsel, mact was fully justified in following the decision in Pramod Kumar's case and fastening the initial liability on the insurer. According to the learned Counsel, mact was fully justified in following the decision in Pramod Kumar's case and fastening the initial liability on the insurer. ( 5 ) THE law as regards fastening of liability on the insurer to pay compensation for injuries/death caused to passengers in a goods carriage is well settled. The Act does not provide for carrying of passengers in a goods carriage meant for carrying goods and that the owner of such a goods carriage will not be entitled to statutory indemnity against the claims by injured gratuitous passengers. The appellant cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation for the gratuitous passengers, in question. In the light of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Vedawati's case where in Arijit Pasayat J. , speaking for the Bench observed that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on a owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability thereto, these appeals deserve to be allowed. The MACT was not justified in fastening the liability on the appellant. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the MACT fastening initial liability on the appellant to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the respondent-owner is set-aside. Regisry is directed to refund forthwith the amount in deposit to the appellant.