ORDER 1. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short - 'the Act'), seeking compensation from the third respondent i.e. the owner of a Van bearing No.KA-19-1392, and the appellant, the insurer of the said Van, alleging that on 08.01.1994 when their mother (the deceased) along with two others was proceeding in the said Van transporting cows from Peddapalli to their native place, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the said Van met with an accident resulting in the death of their mother and injuries to others and so they are entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation. In that petition they filed I.A.No.1/96 under Section 140 of the Act seeking interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the death of their mother. Appellant filed its counter inter alia contending that inasmuch as the deceased admittedly was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle, it is not liable to pay any compensation much less the compensation under Section 140 of the Act. 2. Without considering the contentions of the appellant, the Tribunal, by its award dated 25.11.1998, impugned in this appeal, held that inasmuch as the deceased died in an accident, respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this appeal by the insurer of the Van involved in the accident. 3. The point for consideration is whether the appellant can be made liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased who was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle? 4. The contention of Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, counsel for appellant, is that in view of the ratio in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. ASHA RANI, 2003 (1) ALD 18 (SC) = AIR 2003 SC 607 , the order under appeal is unsustainable. The contention of the learned counsel for third respondent is that inasmuch as the award under appeal is only an interim award and as the main O.P. filed under Section 166 of the Act was disposed of, this appeal becomes infructuous. The contention of the learned counsel for third respondent is that inasmuch as the award under appeal is only an interim award and as the main O.P. filed under Section 166 of the Act was disposed of, this appeal becomes infructuous. It is also his contention that the appellant had preferred an appeal, questioning the award passed by the Tribunal in a claim made by the other injured in the accident, in CMA No.2374 of 1999 and a learned Judge by the order dated 26.12.2000, by relying on NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SATPAL SINGH, 2000 (1) ALD 50 (SC) = AIR 2000 SCV 235, dismissed the appeal of the appellant but reduced the interest from 15% per annum to 12% per annum, and so the appellant at best can seek reduction in rate of interest but cannot assail the award made against it. 5. The order in CMA No.2374 of 1999, relied on by the learned counsel for third respondent, does not operate as res judicata in this case. That apart, the learned Judge relied on SATPAL SINGH case (2 supra) for dismissing that appeal filed by the appellant. As that decision was overruled in ASHA RANI case (1 supra), dismissal of the other appeal preferred by the appellant, in respect of another claim arising out of the same accident will not be of any help to the claimants and so the appeal has to be disposed of on its own merits but not on the basis of the order in CMA No.2374 of 1999. 6. In view of the ratio in ASHA RANI case (1 supra), and inasmuch as the accident in this case occurred prior to the coming into force of Act 54 of 1994 i.e. 14.11.1994, it is clear that insurance does not cover the risk of passengers travelling in a goods vehicle and so the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants. When the appellant cannot be made liable to pay compensation under fault liability for the reason of its not covering the risk of passengers in a goods vehicle, question of its being asked to pay compensation under no fault liability does not arise. In view thereof, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. 7. When the appellant cannot be made liable to pay compensation under fault liability for the reason of its not covering the risk of passengers in a goods vehicle, question of its being asked to pay compensation under no fault liability does not arise. In view thereof, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. 7. In view of my finding on the point for consideration, the appeal is allowed and the award passed against the appellant is set aside. It is needless to mention that the respondents 1 and 2 can execute the award against the third respondent. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal