Judgment V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 847 of 1995, dated 17.09.2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. 2. The Insurance Company is the appellant, who is the second respondent in MCOP.No. 847 of 1995. The first respondent / claimant filed the said MCOP, for claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, as compensation. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- (a) The first respondent was working as RCC Fitter with second respondent. On 22.08.1993, when he along with other workers was returning from work in mixture grinder Lorry, bearing Registration No. TMZ 7709, belonging to the second respondent, met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving by Driver of the second respondent. The Driver of the second respondent suddenly applied the brake and due to this, protruding portion of the mixture grinder machine entered deeply into the abdomen of the first respondent. He suffered grievous injuries. He was given treatment. But, he suffered permanent disability. The vehicle of second respondent was insured with the appellant. Therefore, the first respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation from the appellant and the second respondent. (b) The appellant filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal and denied all the allegations made by the first respondent. (c) According to the appellant, the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the second respondent. The first respondent and other workers travelled in the lorry, contrary to the terms of Policy. The claim petition against the second respondent was dismissed. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The driver of the second respondent was not allowed to take passengers on payment of charges in goods Lorry. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was examined himself as PW.1 and one Jaya Balachandran was examined as PW.2 and six documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. The appellant examined three witnesses as RW.1 to RW.3 and marked three documents as Exs.B1 to B3. 5. On considering the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the second respondent. 6. The appellant examined three witnesses as RW.1 to RW.3 and marked three documents as Exs.B1 to B3. 5. On considering the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the second respondent. 6. Based on the evidence of PW.1, RW.2 and Ex.A1- First Information Report, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first respondent travelled as a passenger in the Lorry belonging to the second respondent for executing the work of laying concrete. Relying on the judgment reported in 2001 ACJ 843, the Tribunal held that when there is a violation of terms of policy condition, the Insurance Company must pay to third parties and recover the same from the insured. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of the injuries suffered by the first respondent, awarded a sum of Rs. 65,000/-, as compensation. Against the said order dated 17.09.2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. 8. In the appeal filed by the appellant, the liability alone is disputed and not quantum. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the specific case of the appellant is that the first respondent travelled as a paid passenger in the Lorry and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, for the injury suffered by the first respondent. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the first respondent has proved that he and other workers worked as RCC Fitter and he travelled in the Lorry accompanying the mixture grinder machines, for laying concrete. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be said to have travelled as a paid passenger. 10. The points for consideration in the appeal are:- (i) whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation when the first respondent travelled in a Lorry as a passenger? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in ordering the appellant to pay compensation in the first instance and recover the same from the second respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the MCOP is dismissed against the second respondent and claim against the Insurance Company is not maintainable. The said contention is not correct. The second respondent owner of Lorry remained ex parte. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the MCOP is dismissed against the second respondent and claim against the Insurance Company is not maintainable. The said contention is not correct. The second respondent owner of Lorry remained ex parte. The MCOP was not dismissed against the second respondent, owner of the vehicle. 12. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the terms of policy is violated and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount has considerable force. 13. The Tribunal based on evidence and Ex.A1-First Information Report had come to categorical conclusion that first respondent did not travel as a load man and appellant proved that first respondent travelled only as a passenger. Having come to the conclusion that the Tribunal erred in following the Judgment reported in 2001 ACJ 843, directing the appellant to pay and recover the amount from the insured, second respondent. Now, it is well settled that the gratuitous or paid passenger travelling in a goods carriage is not entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company. 14. In 2012(1) TNMAC 89(DB), (Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 45 and 46, Whites Road, Chennai- 600 014 Vs P. Ayyakannu), the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- 7. Now we will evaluate the documentary evidence. In the detailed descriptions of the R.C. Book reads as follows: 13. Seating capacity (including driver) 2 in all. The vehicle is a load auto as seen from Ex- R4 series. The Motor vehicle cover note shows that there is no coverage for any passenger but only for goods weighing upto 1350 Kgs and it also shows that the sitting capacity including the driver is two in all. Therefore, it is clear that the passengers who were travelling at the time of accident exceeded the sitting capacity. Even according to the claim petition, the insured were seasonal, agricultural worker and building constructional worker. Their case that they were accompanying the goods which were carried in the insured vehicle cannot be true. In the claim petition they have stated that they were seasonal workers. In the evidence they have stated that they were carrying their vegetables, which belongs to them which grow in their lands. It is difficult to believe their case that they were travelling as owner of goods since according to them they are only seasonal, agricultural worker and constructional worker. In the evidence they have stated that they were carrying their vegetables, which belongs to them which grow in their lands. It is difficult to believe their case that they were travelling as owner of goods since according to them they are only seasonal, agricultural worker and constructional worker. Ex-R2 is the proposal form for getting the insurance policy for the vehicle concerned and the purpose has been shown as a goods carrying vehicle. 8. In Cholletti Baratamma case, 2008(2) TNMAC 29 (SC) : 2008 (1) SCC 423 , the Supreme Court held thus: 10. The effect of 1994 amendment came up for consideration in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1340 , wherein this Court following Asha Rani's case, AIR 2003 SC 607 opined that the words 'injury to any person' would only mean a third party and not a passenger travelling on a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. The question came up for consideration again in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 243 wherein upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions, the said view was reiterated." The FIR marked as Ex- that Ayyakannu was working as a loadman in the mini door auto and he was sitting in the front in the cabin along with the driver. The FIR reads thus: "I am working as a loadman in the mini door auto bearing Registration No. TN.55/K.4584 belonging to Neethipathi S/o. Nallakounder of Thonadipatti. Sukumar of Sevalpatti is employed as a driver of the above auto. On 18-01-2005 at 2.00 p.m. we went to Koduppanur Chatram, loading the vegetables. We loaded the vegetables in the mini door auto and proceeded to Manaparai. I sat in the cabin in the front of the mini door auto. In the rear, Tirupati, Subramani, Makali and Murugan belonging to Tulappanoor were seated." Then the FIR speaks of the accident and finally the complainant has recorded that "since my left thumb has been severed I have affixed my right thumb impression." 9. Therefore, clearly the other two claimants viz., Murugan and Sukumaran were not travelling as the owner of the goods. They were clearly gratuitous passengers. The vehicle in which they were travelling can only carry a driver plus one person, two in all. Only Ayyakannu was seated in the cabin. 10. Therefore, clearly the other two claimants viz., Murugan and Sukumaran were not travelling as the owner of the goods. They were clearly gratuitous passengers. The vehicle in which they were travelling can only carry a driver plus one person, two in all. Only Ayyakannu was seated in the cabin. 10. Rule 236 provides that no person shall be carried in the cabin of a goods carriage beyond the number for which there is a seating accommodation. In the paragraph extracted above from Anjana Shyam's case, the Supreme Court held that Section 149 cannot be understood as imposing a liability on the insurer to make payment even in respect of those who have been loaded into the vehicle against the terms of the permit and against the terms of the condition of registration of the vehicle and that though the insurer is bound to cover the third party risks in respect of passengers, the risks can only be understood to mean risks of passengers authorized or permitted to be carried in the said vehicle. We are bound by this judgment and therefore, we hold that the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability only with regard to Ayyakannu who sat in the cabin of the vehicle and along with the driver and whose liability alone the insurer was bound to cover. 11. C.M.A. Nos. 3637 to 3639 of 2006 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. C.M.A. No. 3448 of 2006 has been filed by the insurer against the award passed in respect of Ayyakannu. C.R.P.NPD. Nos. 1716 and 1717 of 2006 have been filed against the award passed in respect of Subramani and Murugan in view of the pecuniary limit of the award. In view of our conclusion that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured in respect of the awards passed against Murugan and Subramani, we allow C.R.P.NPD. Nos. 1716 and 1717 of 2006. With regard to the quantum, the Tribunal in the case of Subramani and Murugan gave the following reasonings: "It is not his case that the injuries resulted in any kind of permanent disability. As such, at the most, he might have taken rest for a month and thereby incurred a loss of income for that period for which a sum of Rs. 3000/- shall be awarded as compensation. He seems to have taken free treatment in Government hospital. As such, at the most, he might have taken rest for a month and thereby incurred a loss of income for that period for which a sum of Rs. 3000/- shall be awarded as compensation. He seems to have taken free treatment in Government hospital. There is no evidence to show that the paid any amount for treatment. Even then, assuming that a little amount could have been spent for transportation and extra nourishment, a sum of Rs. 1,500/- is awarded for the same. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by P.W.1 a sum of Rs. 3000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. In all a total sum of Rs. 7500/- is awarded as compensation. There are also grounds to take a different view. So we dismiss C.M.A. Nos. 3638, 3639 of 2009 filed by the claimants Murugan and Subramani for enhancement." 15. From the Judgments referred to above, it is clear that now, it is well settled that a gratuitous passenger or paid passenger in goods carriage is not entitled to any compensation from Insurance Company. In view of well settled principles and in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation amounts in the first instance and recover the same from the insured, second respondent. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. If any amount is already withdrawn by the first respondent, the appellant is not entitled to recover the same from him. The appellant is entitled to withdraw balance amounts, if any deposited by it to the credit of MCOP.No. 847 of 1995, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.