JUDGMENT 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 8th September, 2011 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in claim case No.04/2011. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.11,70,000/- claimed by the unfortunate parents of deceased - Pramendra Sahu by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 08.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,63,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Auto bearing registration No.C.G.11/C/1990 being driven by respondent No.3, i.e. owner-cum-driver; Pramendra Sahu died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; the appellant/Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of respondent No.1 & 2. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri Amrito Das, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits: deceased Pramendra Sahu was sitting in the Auto, i.e., a goods carriage vehicle, as a gratuitous passenger and not as owner of the goods. The appellant/insurance company is neither statutorily liable to cover the risk of gratuitous passenger sitting in the goods carriage vehicle nor had undertaken such risk by entering into special contract with the owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.3 and by charging extra premium therefor, and therefore, the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. 5. I have heard Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 6. As per the claim petition, deceased was coming from the market after selling vegetables and was travelling in the Auto with some quantity of vegetables. The respondent No.3, i.e., owner-cum- driver denied the above contents of the claim petition. The appellant/insurance company took a specific defence that deceased along with other persons was sitting in the vehicle as a passenger. 7. The claimants did not examine any eye witness to prove the contents of the petition and the fact that deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and not as a gratuitous passenger. The appellant/insurance company took a specific defence that deceased along with other persons was sitting in the vehicle as a passenger. 7. The claimants did not examine any eye witness to prove the contents of the petition and the fact that deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and not as a gratuitous passenger. The claimant - Bharatlal admittedly was not present on the place of occurrence. For the reasons best known to the respondent No.3, i.e. owner-cum-driver, he did not enter into witness box. There is no mention in the F.I.R. (Ex.A.2) filed and relied upon by the respondents/claimants regarding the fact that deceased was travelling along with some quantity of vegetables nor any seizure memo regarding seizure of such vegetables has been filed. 8. The sitting capacity in the Auto is indisputably one plus one. 3 - 4 persons other than the driver were travelling in the Auto. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and others has held that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle and the travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. In view of above, the claimants have failed to establish: deceased was travelling in the said Auto as owner of the goods and not as a gratuitous passenger and the finding of the Tribunal that deceased was sitting as owner of the goods in the Auto is not sustainable in law. 10. It is settled law that provisions of the MV Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in the vehicle and the insurer would have no liability therefor. However, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks; it is permissible to enter into a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof. A contract of insurance which is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract. 11. The Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Others, has held that for passengers traveling in goods vehicle, the insurance company would have no liability therefor. A contract of insurance which is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract. 11. The Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Others, has held that for passengers traveling in goods vehicle, the insurance company would have no liability therefor. This position was further highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others. 12. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal is allowed. The part of the award whereby the appellant/insurance has been held liable for payment of compensation is set aside. The appellant/insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. The respondents/claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 13. The appellant/insurance company is entitled to recover the amount which was deposited by it before the Tribunal and was disbursed to the claimants, by filing execution petition against the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. 14. No order as to costs.