JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.P.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for claimantrespondent Nos. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 8, has not put in appearance before this Court despite service of notice and appeal is proceeded against him. 2. This first appeal from order has come up against judgment dated 6.9.1993 passed by IXth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad awarding a sum of Rs. 1,07,000/- towards compensation to the claimants-respondents. 3. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that accident of goods carriage i.e. DCM Toyota UGU 8237 took place on 12.10.1989 and deceased Om Prakash was a third person travelling on the vehicle, therefore, there was no liability of compensation under the statute since on a Goods Carriage, no person should have been allowed to be carried as passenger. 4. This issue has been considered in para 12 of the judgment, which reads as under: ^^12- us'kuy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fy0 ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1992 dukZVd i`”B 3 ,oa vksfj;UVy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fy0 izfr bZjkOok rFkk vU; 1992 ,0lh0ts0 i`”B 918 ds okn esa bl vk'k; dk vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS fd eky <ksus okys okgu esa cSBs gq,s O;fDr dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gksus ds vk/kkj ij mlds vkfJrksa dks izfrdj iznku djus dk mDr okgu ds chek dEiuh dk mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gksrk gSA mYys[kuh; ;g gS fd bl okn esa ftl okgu ls nq?kZVuk esa vkRe izdk'k 'kekZ dh e`R;q gqbZ gS og eky <ksus okyk okgu Fkk vr,o mijksDr vfHkerksa dks vk/kkfjr djrs gq;s foi{kh la0 3 dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd og vkRe izdk'k 'kekZ dh e`R;q ds vk/kkj ij vkosndx.k dks fdlh izfrdj dks Hkqxrku djus gsrq ck/; ugha gSA** English Translation by Court “12. In the cases of National Issuance Company Ltd., AIR 1992 Karnataka 3 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Irawwa and others, 1992 ACJ 918 , it has been held that on the basis of death of a person aboard a transportation vehicle in an accident, insurance company with which the said vehicle is insured does not become liable to pay compensation to his dependants. It is pertinent to mention that the vehicle causing the death of Atam Prakash Sharma in the accident was a transportation vehicle. It is pertinent to mention that the vehicle causing the death of Atam Prakash Sharma in the accident was a transportation vehicle. Hence, banking on the aforesaid determinations, it has been contended on behalf of opposite party No. 3 that it is not obligated to pay compensation to applicants on the basis of the death of Atam Prakash Sharma.” 5. The aforesaid findings recorded by Tribunal is patently incorrect and in the teeth of statutory provisions. In insurance policy itself, it was provided that policy shall not cover carrying of passenger in the vehicle except employees other than driver not exceeding six in numbers coming under the purview of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. This aspect has also been considered by Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and others, 2003 (3) TAC 273 (SC) and in para 12, it has said as under: “The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.” 6. In M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 (1) TAC 366 (SC), the Court in para 21 said: “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 tact 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 (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). 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. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). 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 directions 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.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondents could not distinguish aforesaid decisions and point out anything before this Court to support the finding of Tribunal. In view thereof the impugned award against Insurance Company cannot sustain. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 6.9.1993 is hereby set aside only to the extent it is against Insurance Company. However, it will be open to the claimants to recover the compensation from owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. ——————