JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. Appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 2.2.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhinagar in MACP No.110 of 1993. Claim Petition was filed by a person who was injured in a vehicular accident involving a matador. Appellant was shown to be owner thereof in the registration book. The claimant injured filed claim petition of Rs.7 Lacs to be recovered from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. Appellant was duly served with the summons in the claim petition and also engaged an advocate but did not take any further steps as contended by counsel for the appellant before me in view of the insurance cover. The Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.3,08,200/- to the claimant exonerated the insurance company of its liability. This was on the ground that according to the Claims Tribunal, the claimant was a gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle. The insurance company cited several decisions before the Tribunal principally being that of the Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others reported in 2003 (2) GLR 1001 . The Claims Tribunal having come to such conclusion directed the insurance company to pay the compensation but to recover it from the owner. 2. This appeal is pressed on three grounds. (i) That the Claims Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the insurance company without full consideration of evidence on record and the law applicable to it. (ii) That the compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- was excessive. (iii)That the Tribunal committed an error in giving direction to pay and recover. 3. None of the contentions can be accepted. Firstly, appellant did not participate before the Claims Tribunal. As noted, though advocate was engaged, appellant did not lead any evidence. According to the appellant, the vehicle was already sold away. Merely, RC book did not record such a change. Such contention cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence whatsoever. It is not as if the appellant did not have opportunity to present evidence before the Claims Tribunal. Even after service of summons engaging an advocate, the appellant took no further steps to lead any evidence of the transfer of the vehicle, instead he had entirely relied on the insurance company to defend the case. It is not as if the appellant did not have opportunity to present evidence before the Claims Tribunal. Even after service of summons engaging an advocate, the appellant took no further steps to lead any evidence of the transfer of the vehicle, instead he had entirely relied on the insurance company to defend the case. In this context, the Tribunal found and correctly so that the injured being a passenger in a goods vehicle, the insurance policy did not cover his risk. Reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others (supra), therefore, pressed. 4. Though contentions have been raised in the memo of appeal, no worthwhile arguments are raised to reduce the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. I have perused evidence and find little scope of reduction. 5. Last contention regarding the direction for pay and recover also cannot be accepted. If at all, the insurance company would be aggrieved by such a direction and not the appellant in any case, the appellant having deposited the entire amount of compensation, cannot seek refund of that so that the claimant may be asked to file a fresh recovery proceedings. Quite apart from being wholly impermissible, such a direction would also defeat the very cause of justice. 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed. R & P to be transmitted to the trial Court. Request for staying order is rejected. Interim relief vacated. Mr.Shah for the insurance company stated that the entire compensation was paid over by the insurance company to the claimants at the relevant time. The amount which might have been invested by the claims tribunal shall be released in favour of the insurance company with accrued interest, if any. Appeal dismissed.