Judgment :- (This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 18/07/2006 passed in MVC No.5789/2003 on the file of the VI Addl. SCJ & Addl. Judge, member MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCH-2), awarding compensation of Rs.25,600/- with costs & interest @ 7% p.a. from 12/05/2005 till its deposit.) Appellant in all these appeals is United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 18th July 2006 passed in M.V.C.Nos.5789/2003, 5647/2003 and 5648/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2), common appellant has presented the instant Miscellaneous first Appeals, only in so far as it relates to fixing the liability on the appellant – United India Company at the rate of 40% as per the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, on the ground that, there is no liability as such in respect of the goods carriage vehicle for compensating the passengers. .2. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants along with few others were traveling on 7th July 2003 in a lorry bearing No.KA-05/B-2889 in order to visit the temple at Chitamani Road, Bangalore. But unfortunately, on the way, there was an accident involving the lorry in which the claimants were traveling with another lorry bearing No.KA-05/AB-5999 coming from the opposite direction. Thus, as a result of the said accident, the claimants sustained injuries. Therefore, the claimants have filed the claim petition as referred above on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The said claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘Claims Tribunal’ for brevity) on 18th July 2006 and the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed, fixing the liability at the rate of 40% on the common appellant – Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount. Thereafter, liberty was reserved to appellant –Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner of the lorry bearing No. KA-05/B-2889. 3. It is the further case of appellant that, there is no liability at all on the Insurance Company in respect of the goods carriage vehicles for passengers. Thereafter, liberty was reserved to appellant –Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner of the lorry bearing No. KA-05/B-2889. 3. It is the further case of appellant that, there is no liability at all on the Insurance Company in respect of the goods carriage vehicles for passengers. Therefore, when there is no liability at all, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability at the rate of 40% on the Insurance Company and reserved liberty to Insurance Company to thereafter recover the said sum from the lorry owner. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the claims Tribunal is contrary to the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments. Therefore, appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, only in so far as fixing the liability on the Insurance Company at the rate of 40% and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the lorry, is constrained to redress its grievance by presenting the instant Miscellaneous First Appeals. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents. All the claimants are served and some are represented, .5. After careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, what emerges is that, the Claims Tribunal has specifically referred at paragraph 24 of its judgment that, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has admitted that, the policy is in respect of the goods carrier and it is insured only for the purpose of carrying goods, but the vehicle has been used for transporting the passengers and therefore, there is clear violation on the part of the owner. It has come in the evidence that, the claimants were traveling in the lorry in question in order to visit the temple. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be discarded. When there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, it is duty cast upon the owner to pay the compensation. Further, it is observed at paragraph 25 of its judgment and award that, in view of the law laid down, the Insurance Company has to pay compensation at the first instance and thereafter has to recover the same from the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-05/B-2889. Further, it is observed at paragraph 25 of its judgment and award that, in view of the law laid down, the Insurance Company has to pay compensation at the first instance and thereafter has to recover the same from the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-05/B-2889. After going through the reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal at paragraph 24, it emerges is that, the Court has specifically recorded a finding, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and after appreciating the stand taken by the Insurance Company that, there is no liability on the Insurance Company, but in the very next paragraph, the Claims Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, has issued the direction that, the Insurance Company has to pay its part of compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the lorry. The said direction issued by the Claims cannot be accepted nor the same is sustainable for the reason that, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others reported in 2005 ACJ 721, has held that,” it is , therefore, manifest that, in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a 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 the Insurance to such category of people”. (emphasis supplied). .6. Further, in one of latest judgments of the Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premadevi and others reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases P.403, the Apex Court has held that, “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 traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefore”(emphasis supplied). The said view was expressed by the Apex Court after referring to the three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court, as follows: .“11. Our view gets support from a recent decision of a three-judge bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani in which it has been held that Satpal Singh Case was not correctly decided. That being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in holding that the insurer had the liability to satisfy the award”. (emphasis supplied). 7. Therefore, if the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, is taken into consideration coupled with the reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal at paragraph 25 of its judgment and award, I am of the considered view that, the view taken by the Claims Tribunal that, the Insurance Company has to be in the first instance pay and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, is contrary to the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and hence, such a direction ought not to have been issued by the Claims Tribunal. Hence, same is unsustainable and is therefore, liable to be set aside at the threshold itself. 8. Further, it is significant to note that, in the terms and conditions of the policy in respect of goods carriage vehicles, it is stated in a crystal clear manner that, there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company with respect to gratuitous passengers traveling in the vehicle and that, the liability is only on the owner and not on the insurer. Therefore, taking into account all these relevant factors into consideration, I am of the opinion that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, only in so far as it relates to fixing the liability on the Insurance Company at the rate of 40% and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-05/B-2889 cannot be sustained and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 9. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, all these appeals filed by common appellant are disposed of setting aside that portion of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, relating to only fixing the liability on the Insurance Company at 40% and thereafter reserving liberty to them to recover the same from the owner of the lorry. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is held that, in respect of goods carriage vehicles, the owner alone is liable and that, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate in respect of the gratuitous passengers. 10. Withthis modification, the appeals filed by appellant stands disposed of. The amount stated to have been deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court is directed to be released immediately.