JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. 1. The above titled appeals are arising from the same accident, since a common question of law whether in case of any damage caused to the goods being carried in the goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or Insurance Company is liable to be indemnified, is involved, hence taken up together for its decision. Heard and gone through the record. 2. In short, the facts giving rise to the present appeals, are that on 23rd July, 2003, the claimants had loaded their respective goods i.e. apple boxes to market at Delhi in the truck bearing registration No. HR-37-A-5875 from village Churag. The necessary GRs were issued in this connection to them. The truck aforesaid which was being driven by Suresh Kumar respondent met with an accident and fell down the road on account of his rash and negligent driving, thus causing a loss to the goods being carried by it and an FIR was also lodged. 3. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The owner of the goods filed separate claim petitions. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation to each of the claimants for the damage caused to their goods. The Insurance Company feeling aggrieved with the award filed the present appeals on the ground that the matter does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the goods of the consigner being carried in the said vehicle cannot be termed to be the property of a third party. 4. To support his arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant(s) relied upon the Full Bench judgment passed by this Court in FAO No. 97/1999, titled Jagdish Chand Sharma versus Bachan Singh & others, latest HLJ 2010 (HP) (FB) 350 and prayed for setting aside the impugned awards. 5. In Jagdish Chand Sharma's case supra, in paras 27 & 28 in a reference, the Full Bench held as under: 27. When a person sends his goods by a goods vehicle, he enters into a contract with the owner of the goods vehicle and, therefore, the owner of the goods vehicle becomes contractually liable to transport the goods in a safe condition. This is a contractual liability covered under the Carriers Act and not a tortious liability covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. This is a contractual liability covered under the Carriers Act and not a tortious liability covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner of the goods cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a third party vis--vis, the insured. It is a contracting party with the insured and in our view, the risk cannot be said to be that of a third party. 28. In view of the above discussion, we answer both the questions posed to us in the following terms:- 1. The phrase "Any property of a third party" occurring in Sections 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act will mean property which is outside the goods vehicle and not being carried in the goods vehicle. 2. The second question is answered by holding that the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed to be property of a third party." 6. Therefore, in view of the above settled legal proposition, this being a contractual liability covered under the Carriers Act and not a tortuous liability falling within the preview of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owners of the goods, i.e. the petitioners, cannot be awarded the compensation by any stretch of imagination as they do not fall within the definition of 'third party' vis--vis, the insured, as it being a contracting party with the insured, thus the risk cannot be said to be that of a 'third party'. As such, the impugned awards passed by the learned Tribunal are hereby set aside, leaving the claimants to take appropriate redress from the appropriate forum, if permissible under the law, subject to the law of limitation. The amount deposited by the appellants in those appeals shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company with interest accrued thereon. All the appeals are accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.