JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, CJ.- Heard Mr. K. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a miscellaneous appeal filed by Insurance Company (Insurer) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (For short called ’the Act’) against an award dated 12.03.2012 passed by MACT, Manipur (Imphal) in Claim Case No. 128/2011. 3. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimants filed under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.5,24,000/- to him for the death of one lady by name, Nemdoiting Vaiphei, who died in a vehicular accident. Facts of the case are these. 4. On 11.9.2008, a lady by name "Nemdoiting Vaiphei" boarded in a truck (Tata -D.I.-207 - AS-01-X-3159) with her some personal belongings when it was passing on road. It was a goods vehicle. It is the case of claimant that driver of offending vehicle (Truck) was driving the truck very fast and due to failure of stirring system of the truck, it lost the balance resulting in causing accident. In this accident, Nemdoiting Vaiphei who was traveling in the truck suffered serious injuries and later succumbed to it. It is this event, which gave rise to filing of the claim petition by her husband (R-1) as her legal representative under Section 166 of the Act against the non-applicant, i.e. owner/ driver and insurer of the offending vehicle (Appellant herein) claiming compensation for her death. 5. In this case, one of the defence of Insurance Company i.e. Insurer of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal was that since the deceased, was traveling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and hence, no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company arising out of accident. In other words, the defense of Insurance Company was that the deceased had neither hired the offending vehicle for carrying her goods from one destination to other and (sic) nor she was travelling in the truck for the safety of her goods kept therein for being carried from one destination to other. It was thus contended that Insurance Company could not be held liable to indemnify the risk of such gratuitous passenger travelling in the Truck. 6. It is this issue which was gone into along with other issues on facts by the Tribunal. Parties led evidence. It was thus contended that Insurance Company could not be held liable to indemnify the risk of such gratuitous passenger travelling in the Truck. 6. It is this issue which was gone into along with other issues on facts by the Tribunal. Parties led evidence. However, the Tribunal by impugned award allowed the claim petition in part. It was held that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. It was held that Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation because the risk of deceased was also covered under the policy in question. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed against driver/owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally by the Tribunal for a total sum of Rs. 5,24,000/. It is against this award, the Insurance Company has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) was one. According to learned counsel, the law on the question involved in appeal no longer remains res Integra and stands settled by the authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court rendered first in the case of Asha Rani 2003 of (ACJ) 1 (SC) and then in the case reported in National Insurance Company vs. Baljit Kaur and others 2004 ACJ 428 in appellant’s favour. It was his submission that the earlier view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Satpal, reported in 2000 (ACJ) 1 (SC) as the issue involved in the case was overruled by Supreme Court in Asha Rani’s case supra and later Asha Rani’s view was approved in Baljit (supra). Learned counsel maintained that henceforth, it is the law laid down in Asha Rani and Baljit (supra) which govern the field and it is also being followed consistently by Supreme Court till date. Learned counsel pointed out that the evidence adduced by the claimants in this case would go to show that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and hence, law laid down in the case of Asha Rani and Baljit (supra), would apply in appellant’s favour for holding that no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company arising out of such accident in the event of death or injury caused to such gratuitous passenger, travelling in goods vehicle. 8. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the claimant made attempt to distinguish the decisions of Asha Rani and Baljit on the basis of evidence and prayed for upholding of the impugned award. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the award as against the appellant as indicated, infra. 10. As rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the law on the issue involved in appeal no longer remains res Integra and is settled by the authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Asha Rani and later in Baljit (supra). 11. This is what the issue that fell for consideration in Baljit :- "The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether an insurance policy in respect of a goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous passengers, in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." 12. After examining the earlier decision on the issue and noticing Satpal case having been overruled in Asha Rani’s case, their Lordships held as follows :-- "20. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, 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. 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this court in Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned direction having regard to the scope and purport of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding. 22. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals are partly allowed to the aforementioned extent and subject to the directions aforementioned. But there shall be no order as to costs. (emphasised supplied) 13. I am, therefore, only required to see on the facts and the evidence led in this case as to whether there is any evidence to hold that deceased had hired the truck in question for carrying her goods from one destination to other and if so whether she was travelling in the truck along with her goods for its safety or was travelling as authorized agent of the owner of the goods or whether she was travelling as a gratuitous passenger? 14. 14. It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was ’Tata Truck" and was thus a "goods vehicle". Indeed it was also insured as "goods vehicle". It is also not in dispute that deceased asked for a lift on the road to driver of the Truck when the truck in question was moving on the road and she being allowed obviously by the driver, she got inside the Truck along with her personal belongings (some grocery items). 15. In my view, such travelling in the goods vehicle does not amount to either hiring of entire vehicle by the deceased to enable her to travel along with her goods in it, and nor it amounts to travelling by such person for the safety of her goods. In order to attract the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there has to be a hiring of goods vehicle by a person from the owner/Insured of the vehicle on payment for carrying his/her goods from one destination to other and if such person while travelling in the vehicle along with the goods for its safety meets with an accident causing death and injury, his/her risk is indemnified and covered under the policy. If, however, he/she does not hire the truck for carrying his/her goods and does not make any payment to Insured for such hiring but pays some money to driver of vehicle on mid way while the truck was moving from one destination to other for somebody else work or otherwise then it would not amount to hiring of the vehicle by such person from the Insured/owner of vehicle for carrying his/her goods in the vehicle. 16. In my opinion, the evidence of claimants itself proves that the deceased had not hired the vehicle for carrying her goods from one destination to other because no evidence was led by claimant to prove this fact. Rather it proves in clear terms that she was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, because she boarded in the truck in between when it was going from one destination to other for carrying the goods of some other person or otherwise. Rather it proves in clear terms that she was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, because she boarded in the truck in between when it was going from one destination to other for carrying the goods of some other person or otherwise. The very fact that she asked for lift on payment or even if she claimed to have paid some money to driver of the vehicle to allow her to travel with her personal belongings, then it would not make any difference in her status while travelling in vehicle. It will, in my view, remain that of the gratuitous passenger. In other words, I have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion on appreciating the oral evidence that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 17. Once I record this finding in appellants’ favour then the inevitable conclusion is that law laid down in Asha Rani and Baljit (supra) will apply in favour of Insurance Company. In such case, no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company, arising out of the accident, for the death of such gratuitous passenger. 18. In view of aforesaid, I do not consider it necessary to examine any other issue arising in the case because the impugned award has to be set aside so far as appellant (Insurance Company) is concerned. 19. Appeal thus, succeeds and is allowed. Impugned award in so far as it is passed against the appellant is concerned, stands set aside. However, it will remain intact in so far as other non-applicants i.e. owner and driver are concerned. No costs. ___________