JUDGMENT Subhash B. Adi, J. -- Both the appeals art by the insurer questioning the liability in judgment and award in MVC No. 661/2002 and MVC No. 641/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and MACT, Kolar dated 12.01.2007. 2. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,47,400/- and Rs.21,600/- with interest respectfully and has held that the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. It is against the said direction, insurer is in appeals. 3. The case of the claimants is that on 3.5.2000 they were travelling in a tempo bearing registration No. KA-07-A-2545 from Channarayapattana to Kolar. When the tempo reached Rajapura and Mattigatta, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo, it dashed against the tree, as a result of which, claimants suffered grievous injuries. The claim petition was contested by the insurer intaralia denying the accident and denying the liability to indemnify. Interalia contending that the claimants were passengers in a goods vehicle, insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner. The Tribunal though held that there is a violation of the policy condition however, observed that the insurer should pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. 4. Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that the claimants used the vehicle on hire. They have taken the goods vehicle to travel from Channapattana to Kolar to travel several places. FIR shows that there were several persons travelling in the said goods tempo, as such, risk of such passengers is not covered either under provision of Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act or under the policy. Though there is a reference of IMT 14. IMT 14 does not cover the risk of gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle but only for such persons travelling with the journey for the benefit of the owner. To support his case he relied on the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 4064/2004 dated 5.11.2007, MFA No. 25/2007 dated 21.4.2011, MFA No. 4166/2004 dated 17.1.2007, and the decision reported in 2005 II page 721 ACJ in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others. To support his case he relied on the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 4064/2004 dated 5.11.2007, MFA No. 25/2007 dated 21.4.2011, MFA No. 4166/2004 dated 17.1.2007, and the decision reported in 2005 II page 721 ACJ in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others. He also relied on the judgment reported in 2007 ACJ Page 1043 II in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Vedwati and Others and submitted that vehicle in question is a goods vehicle meant for transporting the goods only, as such, persons as specified under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act arts only the persons authorised to travel in the goods vehicle, not others. Even, if there is a contract, contract must be in consonance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. as such, the risk of the persons other than mentioned under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act is covered. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Suguna R Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that under Section 147 of the Act though, the risk of non-fair-paid passenger is not covered but the insurer can entered into a contract to cover the risk of person other than the persons mentioned in Section 147 of the Act. In this case, there is no dispute that the insurer has collected extra premium to cover the risk of non-fair-paid passenger/non-employed one and in view of the same, the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the owner. To support her contention, she relied on the judgment reported in Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Others, AIR 2004 SC 4360 and submitted that insurer is liable to pay the compensation and may recover the same from the owner, if there is a violation of conditions of policy. She relied on another decision of this Court reported in 2006 III KCCR 1753 in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Keludappa and Author and submitted that the risk of inmate of the private vehicle does not makes any difference as to whether they are paid passenger and gratuitous passenger. She relied on another decision of this Court reported in 2006 III KCCR 1753 in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Keludappa and Author and submitted that the risk of inmate of the private vehicle does not makes any difference as to whether they are paid passenger and gratuitous passenger. She also relied on other judgment reported in AIR 2007 (6) KAR 27 in the matter of Veenadevi Jala v. Boregowda and Another and submitted that, even the passenger in case of goods vehicle, the risk of the passenger goods is covered, in view of the IMT 14. She also relied on the judgment of the Division bench and submitted that non-fair-paid passenger risk is covered under IMT 14 i.e., non-fair, non-employee and also any other persons other than employee, as such, liability has to be on the insurer. Further submitted that even otherwise, also Tribunal has directed the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. 6. The only question that arise for consideration in these appeals is, as to whether the risk of person travelling in a goods vehicle as a non-fair paid passenger or otherwise, is covered by virtue of IMT 14. 7. The facts which are not in dispute are that, both the claimants were travelling in a goods vehicle and they were travelling from Channapattana to Kolar. It is also not in dispute that they were not employees nor owners or representatives of the goods vehicle, nor cleaner or driver. They were the persons travelling in the capacity as a passenger. The FIR discloses that vehicle was hired and there were several other persons travelling in the vehicle and on the way the said vehicle met with the accident but only two claim petitions have been filed. 8. To understand as to whether the risk of non-fair paid passenger is covered under the provision of IMT 14 or not, the definition of goods vehicle as defined under Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicle Act is referred which read as under: Goods Carriage means any motor vehicle constructed of 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. 9. 9. Reading of the definition discloses that, it is constructed for carriage of goods, however goods cannot be carried without assistance of the men power like driver, cleaner. The legislation in order to protect the interest of the persons who are require to travel in goods vehicle has specified under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, namely driver and conductor if it is a public service vehicle. Driver if it is a goods carriage vehicle, and the persons being carried in the vehicle. However, on the basis of the interpretation of Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules in a goods carriage the minimum employees for loading and unloading or the coolies are permitted to travel to the extent specified in rule 100 of the rules. 10. Under the IMT 14 the risk of the persons other than the driver to the extent of numbers specified in Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, has been statutorily covered under Section 147 clause (ii)(b)(2), it also provides the power to cover the risk of other persons contractually. It is in these circumstances, it is necessary to find out as to whether there can be any contract to allow the goods vehicle to be used for any other purpose other than the transportation of the goods, by covering the risk of such persons by entering into a contract. 11. As far as goods vehicle is concerned, definition under Section 2(14) of the Act was considered by the Apex Court, it is held that the goods vehicle is not meant for transporting passengers. In the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Bommithi subbhayamma and Other, Apex court has observed in paragraphs 8 and 10 as under:- 8. 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. 10. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this court, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. This appeal is allowed. 10. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this court, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. This appeal is allowed. We, however, make it clear that the claimants-respondents will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation granted in their favour by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. 12. In the similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Vedwati and Others reported in 2007 ACJ 1043 has held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under: 13. The difference in the language of 'goods vehicle' as appear in the old Act and 'goods carriage' in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression 'in additional to passengers' as contained in definition of 'goods vehicle' in the old Act The position becomes further clear because the expression used is 'goods carriage' is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended to section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even section 147 of the Act mandates the compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. The proviso makes it further clear that the compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the WC Act'). There is no reference to any passenger in 'goods carriage'. 14. 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 passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefore. 13. It leaves no doubt that the goods vehicle cannot be used for transportation of the passengers and intention of the legislation to classify the vehicle as goods vehicle, is one for transportation of the goods. 13. It leaves no doubt that the goods vehicle cannot be used for transportation of the passengers and intention of the legislation to classify the vehicle as goods vehicle, is one for transportation of the goods. If the intention of the legislation is to prevent use of particular class of vehicle for the purpose other than purpose for which it was permitted in law it would be violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. However Section 147 clause b(ii) refers to rights of the insurer to enter into the contract It is in this context, the learned Counsel far the claimant submitted that additional premium is collected to cover the risk of one of the non-fair-paid passenger and that is in terms of IMT 14. IMT 14 reads as under: Legal liability to Non-fair paying passengers who are not employees of the insured (commercial vehicle only). In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs...... and not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-1(c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against his legal liability other than liability under statue (except Fatal Accident Act, 1855) in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured and not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is a) Charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. b) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or the other person directly connected with the journey in one form or the other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle described in the Schedule of this policy. 14. IMT 14 refers to cover the risk of the persons who are other wise not statutorily covered under Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act, namely a person not being an employee of the insured not carried for hire or reward. It is true that incidentally, in connection with transportation of the goods or connected with the Journey if person is required to be carried in a goods vehicle over and above persons specified under Section 147 of the Act and such persons having not been carried for hire or reward, the contract covers the risk of such person. It is true that incidentally, in connection with transportation of the goods or connected with the Journey if person is required to be carried in a goods vehicle over and above persons specified under Section 147 of the Act and such persons having not been carried for hire or reward, the contract covers the risk of such person. The reference to the person other than employees means a person connected contractually with the journey in one form of other, in case of goods vehicle incidentally any person who is required to travel in goods vehicle in connection with the journey in one form or other risk of such persons is covered. However it does not mean that the goods carriage could be connected into public service transport vehicle by entering into contract Assuming that the insurer is agreeable to indemnity the liability of the passengers in goods vehicle and enter into contract allowing the goods vehicle to be used for transportation of the passenger, then the very purpose of classification of vehicle as goods vehicle and public service transportation vehicle. Such contract is opposed to public policy and Motor Vehicle Act. 15. IMT 14 however, has been considered by this Court also in MFA No. 4064/2004 at paragraphs 8 and 9 which reads as under: '8. It is seen from the policy, liability of insurance company is subject to conditions set-oat in standard form for liability as per exhibit R2. The legal liability to non-fair paying passengers who are not employees of the insured (Commercial Vehicle only) as stated in terms of IMT 37A reads thus: In consideration of the paying of an additional premium of Rs..... and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-1(c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the Company will indemnify the intuited under the statute (except the Fatal Accidents Act 1855) in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured and not carried for hire and reward provided that the person is a) Charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck b) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from vehicle insured described in the Schedule of This Policy. 9. In the case on hand, claimant was neither a charterer nor representative of charterer. 9. In the case on hand, claimant was neither a charterer nor representative of charterer. It cannot be said the claimant was directly connected with the journey in one form or other. 16, Referring to IMT 37 this Court has held that the claimant was not charterer nor representative of the charterer. It cannot be said the claimant was directly connected with the journey in one form or other. 17. Similarly even in MFA No. 27/2007 on interpretation of IMT 13 this Court has observed that IMT 13 cannot also be said that the passenger in a goods vehicle is directly connected with the journey in one form or other and the liability on the insurer company cannot be fixed by contractually, The Courts are meant to enforce rule of law not to pass order or direction which are contrary to what has been injected by law the Apex Court has also held that the persons travelling in goods as a passenger are not covered under the statute what is not covered under the statute, cannot be made legal by contract. The judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the claimant reported in Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Others, AIR 2004 SC 4360 , is not a case, where the ratio has been decided, what is observed is insurer to pay and recover if there is violation of the terms of the policy as claimants being third parties. The decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bijapur Branch through its Regional Office, rep. by its Deputy Manager Smt. K.S. Vaijayanthi Vs. Keludappa, Major S/o Mallappa Sindhur and Prakash, Major S/o Basayya Ganachari, (2007) ACJ 1241 in case of comprehensive policy covering the risk of inmates to the extent of liability to the tune of Re. 1,00,000/- was upheld. It was the case where the vehicle itself was a jeep, meant and constructed to transport the passenger and not a goods vehicle. Decision reported in AIR 2007 (6) KAR 27 is concerned this Court, no doubt has considered IMT 14 and has held that in terms of endorsement, IMT 14 cover the risk of charterer and his representative and such other persons who are connected with the journey and it would not include such other unauthorised passenger who may have embarked on the vehicle without the knowledge of the charterer or driver of the vehicle. Ho doubt, this Court has also observes that the risk of passenger is covered as he is there in the vehicle with the knowledge of the charterer and the driver of the vehicle and such persons came under the meaning and definition of person connected with the journey. 18. However the facts in this case revealed that, the vehicle was hired by the claimants and others to travel various place from Channapattana to Kolar. It was proceeding to Kolar and on its way it met with an accident. If the vehicle is hired, admittedly, for the purpose other than transportation of the goods and the persons travelling as a passengers in the goods vehicle and not being charterer or representative of charterer, driver or employees and not connected with the journey in one form or other their risk is neither statutorily or under the contract could be covered. Transportation of passenger from one destination to another in goods vehicle cannot be termed as journey connected with journey in one form or other to cover the risk of such persons. There is no dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle and persons travelling in goods vehicle neither under statute or under the contract could be covered, IMT 14 is not applicable to such persons. I am of the opinion that, the risk of a person travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle using the same for transportation of passenger cannot be treated as a person travelling in connection with the journey in one form or other under the provisions of IMT 14. Hence the insurer cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. 19. The Tribunal has neither considered the scope of Section 147 of the Act nor has considered the scope of IMT 14. Hence the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurer are allowed. Direction issued by the Tribunal to pay the compensation and recover from the owner of the vehicle is set aside. Owner of the vehicle is held responsible to pay the compensation. 21. Amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.