JUDGMENT The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.2004 passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P. No.348 of 2001. 2. The second respondent-insurance company is the appellant. The claimants are the respondents 1 to 3 herein and the fourth respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle, which involved in the accident. 3. The claim was preferred for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of one, Mashetty Sangaiah, who was travelling in the offending vehicle, which is a DCM Van bearing No. AP 9T 7643 on 8.4.1998, so as to go to Kandi Village on the National Highway No.9 and at about 6.00 p.m., on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, who lost control over the van, the van turned turtle. Consequently, the deceased sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to the injuries, while undergoing treatment in the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. A case in Crime No.34 of 1998 was registered against the driver of the van. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of his death and was doing business in selling cloth and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to his death. The first claimant was his wife and claimants 2 and 3 are son and minor daughter of the deceased. 4. The first respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. The second respondent, insurer, contested the case on the premise that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the DCM goods vehicle and thus there has been a breach of the condition of the policy by the owner and therefore the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues as under: "(i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Van AP 9T 7643 by its driver and the deceased Mashetty Sangaiah died in the said accident? (ii) Whether the claimants are only the legal heirs of the deceased? (iii) What is the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled? (iv) To what relief?" 6. At the time of enquiry three witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were got marked on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined on the side of the second respondent, besides getting Exs.B1 and B2 marked. 7. (iii) What is the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled? (iv) To what relief?" 6. At the time of enquiry three witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were got marked on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined on the side of the second respondent, besides getting Exs.B1 and B2 marked. 7. Appreciating the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, on account of which the deceased died. The Tribunal was of the further view that the deceased was an authorized passenger in the offending vehicle, which is a goods vehicle and notwithstanding the same in view of the law in vogue by then the insurance company was liable and with that finding granted compensation of Rs.l,98,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, as aforesaid, the instant appeal is filed. 8. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle and if so; whether the appellant-insurer is liable to pay compensation or not? 9. Obviously, in this case the accident occurred on 8.4.1998 at 6.00 p.m. It has been specifically averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a cloth merchant and he boarded the offending vehicle along with the bundle of goods. In the evidence it was sought to be shown that the deceased purchased the cloths under EX.A9 bill at Secunderabad and boarded the vehicle with those goods. The case as set-forth inter alia in the claim petition and the evidence let in on the side of the claimants through P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with EX.A9 bill falls still short of the relevant material which can squarely answer the definition of goods as enjoined under Section 2(13) of the Act. The provision germane is expedient to be excerpted hereunder thus: "(13) "goods" includes live-stock, and 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;" 10. By means of an amendment under Act 54 of 1994 the expression "goods" was sought to be defined under the Act and the amendment came into force with effect from 14.11.1994. Having regard to the fact that the accident in this case was occurred in the year 1998, the definition of the term 'goods' is relevant for the present purposes. From a perusal of the said provision, it shows the expression 'goods' does not include luggage or personal effects carrying in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or personal luggage of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. 11. As discussed hereinabove, the pleading as well as the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants cannot go beyond the description of personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. It is squarely a case where the deceased was travelling with his personal luggage and with the cloth bundles in the van, which is manifestly a goods vehicle. Admittedly, the insurance policy in this case does not cover the deceased passenger. Therefore, the contention that the deceased was travelling as the owner of the goods, for the above reasons, cannot be countenanced. 12. There has been change in the legal position. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 378 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 = 2005 AILD 213 (sq, the Apex Court was of the view that the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. In view of the clear legal position, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal shall have to be set aside qua the appellant. However, it will not absolve the first respondent-owner from any liability on account of the tortious act on the part of the driver, which resulted in the accident of the vehicle during the course of his employment. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal below shall have to be modified granting compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the first respondent only, while dismissing the claim as against the second respondent. 13. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 6.12.2004 passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P. No.348 of 2001 is hereby set aside limiting the award qua the first respondent only. 13. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 6.12.2004 passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P. No.348 of 2001 is hereby set aside limiting the award qua the first respondent only. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.