Judgment : The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 10-08-2004 in M.V.O.P No.523 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Warangal granting compensation of Rs.44,000/-consequent on the injuries received by the petitioner. 2. According to the claim of the petitioner, on 28-03-1999 at about 4.30 P.M one lorry bearing No.AP5-3114 was parked and as the petitioner was having acquaintance with the driver of the lorry, he entered into the lorry to collect the cassettes and at that time soda gas cylinder which was kept in the lorry has exploded and consequently the petitioner received injuries. A claim was made for a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company disputed the liability stating that there is no rashness and negligence in use of the vehicle and the compensation is not payable. However, the lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted a compensation of Rs.44,000/- fastening the liability on the appellant also. 4. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation? POINT:- 5. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that carrying of the soda gas cylinder and explosion of the same has nothing to do with the use of the vehicle and consequently the risk is not covered under the policy. However, this contention may not hold good for the reason if the vehicle was in use and if the driver of the vehicle has allowed some unauthorised material to be carried, then the cause of the accident is a case of negligence. But, however, it is also the further contention of the counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was not in use. Further, even assuming to be that the vehicle is to be taken as use being parked while it was going from one place to another, the person who received the injuries has entered into the vehicle unauthorisedly and his entrance is only a gratuitous unauthorised passenger. If at all it is to be accepted and consequently the vehicle being a goods vehicle there is no liability for the appellant. If at all it is to be accepted and consequently the vehicle being a goods vehicle there is no liability for the appellant. The above contention of the counsel for the appellant holds good in view of the fact that in a goods vehicle whether it is in movement or otherwise, if the Insurance Company is to be made liable there can not be any unauthorised travel and gratuitous passengers are not covered under the risk. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the liability of the Insurance Company is exonerated and the appeal is liable to be allowed. However, if the amount deposited by the appellant is withdrawn, the appellant is at liberty recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and if the amount deposited is not withdrawn, the appellant is entitled to claim the same and the claimant/petitioner is to proceed for realisation against the owner of the vehicle. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs.