JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment cum award dated 20.3.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in M.A.C. No. 160/1999 whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was allowed and they were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on account of death of their 18 years' son Geegu Ram in a road accident, which occurred on 28.4.1999. Whilst accepting the claim, the Tribunal held the appellant Insurance Company i.e. insurer of the truck bearing registration No GJ 9.V.7464 and respondent No. 4 Ibrahim Bhai, the owner thereof, to be jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. It is against the said direction of holding the appellant Insurance Company to be jointly and severally responsibility to satisfy the award with the owner of the insured vehicle that the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that on 28.4.1999 the deceased Geegu Ram wat travelling in a truck bearing registration No. GJ 9.V.7464, which was going from Rajasthan to Gujarat. At about 4.30-5.00 in the morning, the truck overturned at a result whereof, Geegu Ram, the deceased, received a head injury. He was take: to the Gudamalani Hospital where he expired. The respondents No. 1 and 2 claimants being the parents of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 15,79,000/-. The owner and the driver of the truck in question did not appeal in the claim proceedings despite service. Appearance was put in on behalf of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and a specific plea was taken that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the truck and thus, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation as it was a case involving death of a passenger travelling in a transport vehicle. 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. As to whether the driver of the truck bearing registration No. GJ V.9.7564 drove the same rashly and negligently on 28.4.1999 and caused the accident in. which Geegu Ram expired? 2. As to whether the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 15,79,000/-? 3. 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. As to whether the driver of the truck bearing registration No. GJ V.9.7564 drove the same rashly and negligently on 28.4.1999 and caused the accident in. which Geegu Ram expired? 2. As to whether the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 15,79,000/-? 3. As to whether the deceased was travelling in the truck as a passenger and as a result thereof, whether the Insurance Company was liable to bear the award or not? 4. As to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence to drive the same? 4. The Tribunal recorded a finding on the issue No. 1 against the driver of the truck and held his rash and negligent driving to be the cause of the accident. The issue No. 3 regarding the plea taken by the Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle was decided against the Insurance Company and it was held that the deceased was travelling in the truck as 3 labourer and thus, he could not be considered to be a passenger. The issue No. d was also decided against the Insurance Company and the Tribunal accepted the claim application and awarded Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the claimants holding the Insurance Company and the owner of the insured vehicle to be jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. 5. Shri Manoj Bhandari learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal particularly on the issue No. 3. He submitted that AYV-2 Nanak Ram the brother of the deceased admitted in his cross-examination that he and his brother were proceeding in the truck in question towards Gujarat in search of employment. He urged that in the cross-examination, the witness admitted that 11 persons were travelling in the truck and that when he and his brother boarded the truck, they settled a fare of Rs. 501/- per passenger with the driver Asudas. Learned Counsel thus submitted that in view of this admission made by Nanak Ram, it is clear that the deceased and the other persons were not employed as labourers on the truck but were travelling in the truck as fare paying passengers. 501/- per passenger with the driver Asudas. Learned Counsel thus submitted that in view of this admission made by Nanak Ram, it is clear that the deceased and the other persons were not employed as labourers on the truck but were travelling in the truck as fare paying passengers. He submitted that the truck in question was a transport vehicle and as passengers were being carried therein, the Insurance ' Company would not be liable to cover their risk. He relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 607 ; Oriental Insurance Co. ; Ltd. v. Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 484 in support of this assertion and urged that the appeal should be accepted. 6. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Panwar learned Counsel appearing for the 1 respondents claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and submitted that in view of the avoidance clause of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has to be held responsible to satisfy the award even if the victim was travelling in the truck as a fare paying passenger. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned judgment cum award as well as the record. 8. The finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the issue No. 3 that the deceased was travelling in the truck as a labourer engaged on the truck is obviously contrary to the facts available on record and was passed in total ignorance of the evidence available on record. The Tribunal did not even care to refer to the evidence recorded during the claim proceedings while arriving at this finding. Nanak Ram the brother of the deceased was examined as AW-2 on behalf of the claimants. He, in his cross-examination admitted that 11 persons were sitting in the truck. He further admitted that the deceased was doing in the job of grazing goats. It was also admitted that when they boarded the truck, a fare of Rs. 50/- per head was settled with the driver Asudas. He, in his cross-examination admitted that 11 persons were sitting in the truck. He further admitted that the deceased was doing in the job of grazing goats. It was also admitted that when they boarded the truck, a fare of Rs. 50/- per head was settled with the driver Asudas. In the backdrop of this admission of the star witness examined by the claimants, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was engaged as a labourer on the truck and was travelling therein in that capacity is absolutely perverse. As per the admission made by Nanak Ram in his cross-examination, the deceased was engaged in the job of grazing goats. Furthermore, Nanak Ram also admitted that he as well as the deceased while boarding the truck had settled the fare at Rs. 50/- per head with the driver. Therefore, obviously both of them were travelling in the truck as fare paying passengers. The truck is a transport vehicle and the Insurance Company would not be responsible to cover the risk of the passengers travelling therein. Any insurance policy be it a third party or a comprehensive policy issued in relation to a transport vehicle would not cover the risks of passengers travelling in the vehicle unless it is shown that premium was charged for the same. No such case was set up by the owner of the offending vehicle that he had paid any premium to the Insurance Company for covering the risk of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. Thus, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Asha Rani, Meena Variyal and Cholleti Bharatamma (supra), the impugned judgment cum award cannot be sustained so far as the liability of the appellant Insurance Company is concerned. 9. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards the issue No. 3 holding the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award is quashed. 9. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards the issue No. 3 holding the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award is quashed. Now in view of the aforesaid finding, only the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle shall be responsible to indemnify the award.If the Insurance Company has deposited any amount towards the award, it shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing execution proceedings before the Tribunal.The appeal is allowed in the above terms.Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******