JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.1046/99, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that on 23.10.1998, the deceased Bharatkumar, had hired the matador No.GJ-2V-5742 for transportation of the diesel for diesel engine, agricultural equipments, water pipes, etc., and household requirements from Becharaji market, but between Becharaji and Hasalpur, the metador collided with the other vehicle and there was damage to the vehicle and Bharatkumar had sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- by the family members of deceased Bharatkumar being MACP No.1046/99. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the petition, passed the above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms. Renu Singh for respondents no.1 to 4-original claimants. None appears for respondent no.5 and Ms. Ajmera for respondent no.6. 4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Thakkar was that the deceased Bharatkumar was the gratuitous passenger in metador which was goods vehicle and the insurance was also for the goods vehicle. He submitted that under these circumstances, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation nor could be made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 5. The contention may prima facie appear to be attractive, but close scrutiny of the record and proceeding of the court shows that the claimants made averment in the claim petition that the metador was hired by deceased Bharatkumar for transport of diesel engine, agricultural equipments, water pipes, etc., and household requirements from Becharaji market and unfortunately, between Becharaji and Hasalpur, the metador collided. 6. On behalf of the insurance company, there is no express denial on the said averment made at paragraph 10 of the application, but it has been stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company in paragraph 7 that the metador was a goods carrying vehicle and the passengers were prohibited to travel in the said vehicle and therefore, there was breach of the insurance policy. Further, in paragraph 14, in the written statement, it was stated that the passengers are strictly prohibited to travel in the said vehicle and there was breach of the policy. There is no denial on behalf of the insurance company specifically to the case put forward by the original claimants that the vehicle was hired by the deceased for bringing certain goods from Becharaji market. The another relevant aspect is that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the claimants, some statement was made of hiring of metador and when the deceased proceeded to Becharaji in the said metador, there was accident. But in the cross-examination, not a single contradiction is put to the hiring of metador. On the contrary, in the cross-examination of Rekhaben Bharatkumar, one of the claimant, she admitted that her husband was going in metador by hiring metador. Under these circumstances, when metador was already hired as the goods vehicle for transportation of certain items and the person who had hired the vehicle was travelling in the metador, it cannot be said that there was breach of condition since the vehicle was a goods vehicle and it was also hired for goods. 7. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that the goods were not found inside the metador since nothing is mentioned in the panchnama and in panchnama, it is mentioned that nothing was in the metador and he further submitted that as goods were not found inside the metador, even if metador was hired by the deceased, the liability of the insurance company cannot be fastened as it would be breach of condition of the policy. 8. We are afraid such contention can be accepted. If the hirer is going with the metador so as to bring goods to be purchased and on the way before the goods were purchased, the accident has happened, such cannot be a valid ground on the part of the insurance company for contending that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy. Had it been a case where the vehicle was not hired and the passenger was found who had not hired the vehicle, he might be termed as gratuitous passenger or the journey of such passenger may be contended as in breach of the condition. Had it been a case where the vehicle was not hired and the passenger was found who had not hired the vehicle, he might be termed as gratuitous passenger or the journey of such passenger may be contended as in breach of the condition. But when the person who is to bring the goods has already hired and while going for purchasing the goods if the accident has happened, the hirer if was going in metador and the injury is sustained by him, it cannot be said that there would any breach of the condition of the policy of the goods vehicle as sought to be canvassed. It is hardly required to be stated that if the goods were found at the time of accident with the hirer-owner of the goods, the liability would be attracted. But the contention that if on the way something happens before the delivery of the goods is taken, the liability would not be of the insurance company if entertained, such interpretation in our view would be totally frustrating the purpose of statutory liability on the part of the insurance company. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the above, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in holding the insurance company-appellant herein as liable for compensation. 10. No other contention is raised. Hence, the appeal is meritless and therefore, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.