ORDER 1. Insurance Company has filed this appeal being aggrieved by award dated 27.11.2004 passed in Claim Case No.22/2004 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,42,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the claimants have played fraud on the Court and in the claim petition which was originally filed before the Tribunal there was a specific mention of the fact that deceased was travelling on the dumper but subsequently the claim petition was replaced and in para 2 it was mentioned that the deceased was standing on the side of the road when the dumper had come and hit him and accordingly has filed application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC vide I.A.No.907/2006. This I.A is allowed and disposed of. Claim petition as has been filed by the Insurance Company is taken on record. 3. It is the contention of Insurance Company that since it has come in their investigation report and their investigator Rajan Saxena (DW1) has also deposed that the deceased was a fare paying passenger, therefore, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, and, therefore, Insurance Company should have been exonerated. It is also submitted that Claims Tribunal has wrongly adverted to the fact that since the deceased was travelling with bunch of flowers which were to be sold in Gwalior market, therefore, he was travelling with the goods as an erroneous finding inasmuch as there is no material on record to show that offending vehicle/ dumper was being used for transportation of flower and the deceased was travelling with the goods, namely flowers which were purchased by him or which were in his custody for sale in Gwalior market. Besides this, total emphasis is on the aspect of dumper being non-passenger carrying vehicle, and therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for an accident taking place from the dumper causing injuries/fatalities on account of such accident to the passengers who were sitting in the dumper. 4. Besides this, total emphasis is on the aspect of dumper being non-passenger carrying vehicle, and therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for an accident taking place from the dumper causing injuries/fatalities on account of such accident to the passengers who were sitting in the dumper. 4. Shri Chaturvedi on the other hand submits that as per the insurance policy issued by the insurer-United India Insurance Company, they have charged a premium of Rs.150/- for non-fare paying passengers numbering two and since the claimant was one of the non-fare paying passenger, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimants inasmuch as after having charged the premium for non-fare paying passengers, Insurance Company is estopped from taking a plea that dumper could not have been used for the purposes of carrying passenger. 5. Shri Malhotra on the other hand has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.276/2002 (Krishan Prasad Chaturvedi and others v. Smt. Kamla Chaturvedi and another) decided on 30.3.2007, wherein it has been held that carrying of passengers in goods carriage is not permissible and if they are carried in goods carriage, Insurance Company is not liable. Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Insurance Company should be exonerated and they cannot be held liable for compensating the claimants. 6. As far as the aforesaid judgment as has been cited by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is distinguishable inasmuch as prior to the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act in 1994 even the owner of the goods was not permitted to sit with the goods, but the fact of the matter is that when it is not permissible to carry passenger in a goods vehicle, then why Insurance Company was compelled to accept premium for two non-fare paying passengers. This is in addition to workmen compensation to six employees. That means that besides six employees, who can be carried in goods carrying vehicle for the purposes of loading and unloading of such goods which belongs to the owner and who were insured under Workmen’s Compensation Act, two non-fare paying passengers were permitted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. That means that besides six employees, who can be carried in goods carrying vehicle for the purposes of loading and unloading of such goods which belongs to the owner and who were insured under Workmen’s Compensation Act, two non-fare paying passengers were permitted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Since premium has been charged for two non-fare paying passengers by the Insurance Company, it cannot be said that Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle for the negligence of its driver in meeting with an accident and to indemnify the claimants inasmuch as Insurance Company had charged premium for two non-fare paying passengers. In fact, the evidence of Kuber Singh and Madanlal in the form of case diary statements reveals that they have categorically denied paying any fare to the owner or driver of the offending vehicle. Since there is no evidence that any fare was charged by the driver/owner of the dumper, therefore, the passengers who were travelling in the offending vehicle will be treated as nonfare paying passengers and since premium has been charged for them, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Thus, except for certain minor aberration as pointed out, the award does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality calling for any interference. Thus, the appeal fails and is dismissed.