Judgment 1. This appeal is by the insurer of the offending lorry challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability. 2. All though the respondent Nos.1 and 3, who are claimant and owner of the offending lorry respectively were served with the notice of appeal, they remained unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle was dispensed with as per the order of the Court dated 19.7.2012. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal including the records. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 5. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 12.01.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing registration No. TDB-9925 by its driver and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only point remains for consideration in the appeal is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the appellant/insurer of offending vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle when there is no legal liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant?” 6. The learned counsel for the insurer of the offending lorry submits that the offending lorry is a goods vehicle and admittedly, the claimant had travelled in the offending lorry as an unauthorised passenger and the Tribunal is not justified in directing the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner of the offending lorry and hence he prays for allowing the appeal by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal in so far as liability is concerned. 7. 7. My answer for the above point raised is in the negative for the following reasons: The claimant in his statement given before the police, which was marked as Ex.P-2 has stated that on 12.1.2002 after finishing his work at Channarayapatna, he came to the bus stop near Channarayapatna Udaya School to return to his village Kikkeri, there he found two of his villagers namely Nagesh and Venkatesh were also waiting for a bus and at that time, the offending lorry came there and all of them boarded the said lorry and travelled by sitting on the backside of the lorry, while so travelling near Mandaleekanahalli Gate, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake and caused the accident and as a result, all of them fell down and sustained injuries. 8. Whereas in paragraph 22 of the claim petition, it is stated that on 12.1.2002, when the claimant went to Channarayapatna for purchasing goods and after purchasing goods i.e., ply wood sheets, he and his villagements were waiting for a vehicle to return to their village Kikkeri. At that time, the offending lorry bearing No.TDB-9925 came there and the driver of the lorry asked them to get into the lorry stating that it is going to Mysore, so that they can get down at Kikkeri. As there was no bus convenience or any other vehicle to return to their village Kikkeri, they boarded the offending lorry and travelled along with the goods i.e., with plywood sheets, while so travelling near Mandaleekanahalli Gate, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident and as a result, he and his villagemets fell down and sustained injuries. 9. The contention of the claimant that he had travelled in the offending lorry along with the alleged goods i.e., plywood sheets is introduced for the first time at the time of filing the claim petition. If the claimant had really travelled in the offending lorry along with the goods viz., plywood sheets, he would have certainly stated so while making the statement before the police. If the claimant had really travelled in the offending lorry along with the goods viz., plywood sheets, he would have certainly stated so while making the statement before the police. Besides his contention that he boarded the offending lorry which was proceeding to Mysore at Channarayapatna bus stop also goes to show that he had not engaged the offending lorry for the purpose of carrying the alleged goods to his village Kikkeri. Further, his contention that as there was no bus convenience or any other vehicles to return to his village Kikkeri and therefore, he had to travel in the offending lorry itself demonstrates that he had not travelled in the offending lorry along with the goods. Apart from that his Village Kikkeri comes in between Channarayapatna and K.R.Pet, which is a State High Way Road and there is very good convenience of vehicles. 10. That from the above discussions, it is clear that the claimant had not travelled in the offending lorry along with the goods and he had travelled in the offending lorry as an unauthorized passenger and the Tribunal without considering this material aspect of the matter has committed an error in fastening liability against the insurer of the offending lorry by directing them to pay compensation to the claimant and then recover it from the owner of the offending lorry. Therefore, the insurer of the offending lorry is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending lorry, who allowed the claimant to travel in the lorry as an unauthorized passenger and pay compensation to the claimant. Now, in view of exonerating the insurer from liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, the liability has to be fastened against the owner of the offending vehicle, who has not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on issue No.1 holding that the claimant had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.1.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing registration No.TDB 9925 by its driver and regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 31.12.2007 passed in MVC 232/2006 is modified in so far as liability is concerned. The insurer of the offending vehicle is exonerated from liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 31.12.2007 passed in MVC 232/2006 is modified in so far as liability is concerned. The insurer of the offending vehicle is exonerated from liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. The same is fastened against the owner of the offending vehicle and he is directed to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant with interest from the date of claim petition till the date of the deposit. 12. It is made clear that the claimant is entitled to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the offending vehicle with interest from the date of claim petition till the date of the deposit. No order as to costs.