Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2001 in M.V.O.P.No.424 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), (for short "Tribunal), Guntur, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 5 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,20,200/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased- Gunturu Satish Kumar, who died in a motor vehicles accident that occurred on the intervening night of 11/12.03.1998. The first respondent is the wife. Respondents 2 and 3 are the sons and respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased-Gunturu Satish Kumar. According to them, on the intervening night of 11/12.03.1998, the deceased was proceeding in a lorry bearing No.A.I.W.3949 from Gurazala to Guntur, carrying rice bags and that on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the vehicle dashed against a tree situate in the road margin resulting in the death of the deceased-Gunturu Satish Kumar. A case in Crime No.24 of 1998 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered by Medikonduru Police. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 35 years and working as a Process Server in the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gurazala and drawing a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. 3. The sixth respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant-insurer herein filed a written statement opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation and further contending that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger and the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation as the risk in respect of the unauthorized passenger is not covered by the policy-Ex.B1. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing no.A.I.W.-3949? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 6. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of the appellant herein. 7. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 6. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of the appellant herein. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal gave finding on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,20,200/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition against the owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant-insurer preferred the present appeal. 9. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer and respondents are heard. Records are perused. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contended that as per the evidence on record, the deceased was admittedly travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and the risk in respect of such passenger is not covered by the policy-Ex.B1, and therefore, the appellant-insurer is not liable for payment of compensation. 11. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously disputed. Even otherwise, the First Information Report-Ex.A1 and chargesheet-Ex.A5 go to show that the driver of the lorry was at fault and after due investigation, he was prosecuted. Ex.A.3, the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report shows that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, does not, therefore, call for any interference. The other finding of the Tribunal that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,20,200/- is also not seriously disputed. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the said compensation because the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods carriage vehicle. 12. The other finding of the Tribunal that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,20,200/- is also not seriously disputed. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the said compensation because the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods carriage vehicle. 12. According to the claimants, on the intervening night of 11/12.03.1998, the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing No.A.I.W.3949 from Gurazala to Guntur. Of course, the claimants further pleaded that the deceased was carrying rice bags along with him. It is not stated in the claim application as to how many rice bags the deceased was carrying with him. In the evidence, the first claimant-P.W.1 also did not specify, except saying that the deceased was carrying rice. Admittedly, the lorry was loaded with napa stones while it was proceeding to Guntur. The deceased boarded the lorry in the midway at Gurazala. In the First Information Report-Ex.A1, which was registered immediately after the accident, on a complaint given by one Mommu Kotaiah, it is stated that himself and one Ramulu came to Macherla along with their chilly bags and boarded the lorry bearing No.A.I.W.3949, which was already loaded with napa stones when it was proceeding to Guntur. The chargesheet-Ex.A5 also shows that the lorry was proceeding to Guntur with load of napa sontes and the deceased boarded the lorry midway at Gurazala. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that the deceased boarded the lorry midway at Gurazala, when it was proceeding to Guntur loaded with napa stones. The fact that the deceased carried with him some rice bags does not make any difference and it cannot be considered that he was transporting the goods in the lorry and was accompanying them as its owner. It is not disputed that the lorry is a goods carriage vehicle. 13. The expression "goods carriage" is defined in Section 2 (14) of the Act, and it is reads thus:- "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods." 14. 13. The expression "goods carriage" is defined in Section 2 (14) of the Act, and it is reads thus:- "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods." 14. The expression "goods" is defined in Section 2 (13) of the Act in the following terms:- "goods" includes live-stock, any anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle." 15. In view of the above definition of the expression "goods", any luggage or personal effects carried by a passenger along with him while travelling in a goods carriage vehicle does not come within the meaning of "goods". The chilli bags that the claimant was said to be carrying with him does not accord him the status of a person transporting the goods and accompanying them in the capacity as owner thereof, so as to fasten the liability on the appellant-insurer. 16. In "New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani" 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court held as follows: "On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorized 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. It was further held, "The applicability of decision of this Court in Mallawwa (Smt.) and Ors. V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 403 ) in this case must be considered keeping that aspect in view. Section 2 (35) of 1988 Act does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas Section 2 (25) of 1939 Act did as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of the "goods vehicle" in 1939 Act and "goods carriage" in 1988 Act, is significant. Section 2 (35) of 1988 Act does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas Section 2 (25) of 1939 Act did as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of the "goods vehicle" in 1939 Act and "goods carriage" in 1988 Act, is significant. By reason of the change in the definitions of the terminology, the Legislature intended that a goods vehicle could not carry any passenger, as the words "in addition to passengers" occurring in the definition of goods vehicle in 1939 Act were omitted. Furthermore, it categorically states that 'goods carriage' would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use "solely for the carriage of goods". Carrying of passengers in a 'goods carriage', thus, is not contemplated under 1988 Act". 17. In "National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Bommithi Subayamma and others" 2005 (2) ACJ 721 (SC), the Apex Court held as follows: "Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now 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 passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people" 18. In "New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vedwati & others" (2007 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 387), the Apex Court held as follows: "The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefore". 19. In "Deddula Padmavathi & another v. Maddala Srinviasa Rao and another" ( 2004 (5) ALD 228 ), this Court held as follows:- "One or two bags of vegetables being carried by a passenger who boarded the lorry in the midway would not become 'goods within the meaning of Section 2 (13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) because luggage being carried by passengers is not covered by the aid definition. The volume and the weight of the bags being carried would have relevant to find out if they are 'luggage' or 'goods' within the mean of Section 2 (13) of the Act. Words employed in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act, reading 'including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle' show that the intendment of the Parliament was to cover the risk of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative who actually engaged the goods vehicle for transport of his 'goods from one destination to another destination, and are not intended to cover persons who board the goods vehicle, carrying 'goods' of some others, in the midway with some luggage being carried with them." 20. R.W.1 the Assistant Administrative Officer of the appellant-insurer deposed that as per the policy-Ex.B1, no premium was paid to cover the risk of owner of the goods. It is also his evidence that the vehicle involved is a goods vehicle and no one can travel therein as a passenger. Ex.B.1-copy of the insurance policy does not show that any additional premium was paid in respect of any owner of the goods or his authorized representative accompanying the goods. 21. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, it is held that as the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a lorry, which is a goods carriage vehicle and the risk in respect of such passenger is not covered by the policy-Ex. B1, the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is however, open for the claimants to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. 22. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, it is held that the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Respondents-claimants are, however, at liberty to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. The award dated 09.02.2001 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.424 of 1998 is modified accordingly. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs.