Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) – The appeal is by the insurance company on the issue of liability. The claimants were persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle along with their luggage. The contention raised was that the goods which the vehicle could be used for transportation were the goods as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act and cannot include personal luggage of a passenger in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal applied the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Satpal Singh 2000(1) RCJ 132 to hold that the insurance company is liable. 2. The law has been settled when the judgment in Satpal’s case (supra) was overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani and others 2003 (2) SCC 223 . The issue of whether a personal luggage of passenger in a goods vehicle could be treated as a situation of an owner of the goods travelling with the goods could be answered only by raising a question of whether the personal luggage carried by the person was actually booked as goods and the owner happened to be travelling along with the goods. Goods as defined under Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:- “2 (13) “goods” includes livestock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.” 3. This definition clearly excepts any personal luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. A goods carriage, therefore, for which a term is required to carry as goods cannot bring in its ambit a personal luggage of a person who could only be carrying the same in a passenger vehicle and not in a goods vehicle. A goods carriage, therefore, for which a term is required to carry as goods cannot bring in its ambit a personal luggage of a person who could only be carrying the same in a passenger vehicle and not in a goods vehicle. The decision in Asha Rani’s case (supra) is an authority in the proposition that there is no compulsory insurance cover for a passenger in a goods carriage and the mere fact of such passenger happen to carry with him some personal luggage cannot bring him within the class of persons who would be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act namely of owners of goods going along with the goods. Even the owner of the goods going along with the goods was explained in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others JT 2004 (7) SC 519 that the said owner of the goods who is entitled to travel along with the goods must be seen as person who was within a cabin. This again means that the principal purpose of the goods vehicle must be to transport goods and an owner shall be a person who would be carried in a cabin and who would be authorized to travel as such. This also is the manner of understanding as to how a goods vehicle cannot be used by a person to carry his personal luggage and sit him in the placement for keeping the goods. 4. The liability cast on the insurance company was clearly not tenable in law and therefore, the decision casting such liability is set aside. The appeal by the insurance company is allowed. If any portion of the award has been recovered from the insurer, the insurance company will have right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle and not against the claimants. If any portion of the amount is still not secured by the claimant, the further right of recovery shall be exercised only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the insurer.