COMMON JUDGMENT : These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 08.09.2011, made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 29, 31, 30, 34, 28, 33 & 27 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Mannargudi. 2. By consent of both the parties, all the appeals are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. All the appeals arise out of the same accident and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 29, 31, 30, 34, 28, 33 & 27 of 2010 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Mannargudi. The 1st respondent in all the appeals filed the said claim petitions claiming various amounts as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 12.01.2009. 5. According to the 1st respondent in all the appeals, on the date of accident viz., 12.01.2009, when they were travelling in a Van bearing Registration No. TN-67-A-4919, belonging to the 2nd respondent, in Vaduvur Lake Road, the driver of the Van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and got the vehicle capsized in Vaduvoor Lake and caused the accident. The 1st respondent in all the appeals sustained grievous injuries and filed the present claim petitions, claiming various amounts as compensation against the 2nd respondent, owner of the Van and appellant, as insurer of the Van. 6. The 2nd respondent filed counter statements and denied all the averments made in the claim petitions. According to the 2nd respondent, the Van belonging to her is a goods carrier. The 1st respondent in all the appeals travelled in the Van without the knowledge of the 2nd respondent. In any event, the driver of the Van drove the vehicle in a careful manner and he had valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The injuries sustained by the 1st respondents are simple in nature and they took treatment in the Government Hospital. Hence, the compensation claimed by the 1st respondents are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statements and denied all the averments of the 1st respondents. The injuries sustained by the 1st respondents are simple in nature and they took treatment in the Government Hospital. Hence, the compensation claimed by the 1st respondents are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statements and denied all the averments of the 1st respondents. According to the appellant, the 1st respondents travelled in the LMV Load Van which is a goods carrier. The seating capacity of the said vehicle is only 2, but more than 11 passengers including the 1st respondent in all the appeals have travelled in the said vehicle to attend a family function. At the time of accident, the driver of the LMV Load Van did not possess valid driving licence, badge or endorsement to drive the goods carrier. Thus, the 2nd respondent has committed the breach of policy conditions. For the breach of policy conditions, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondents and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions. 8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondents examined themselves as P.W.1 in their respective claim petitions and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The appellant examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.B1 & B2. 9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Van belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.7,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondents respectively and recover the same from the 2nd respondent. 10. Against the said award dated 08.09.2011, made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 29, 31, 30, 34, 28, 33 & 27 of 2010, the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with the present appeals. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery when the 1st respondent in all the appeals travelled as un-authorized passengers in the goods carrier. The offending vehicle is goods carriage vehicle and it is not meant for carrying passengers. At the time of accident, more than 11 persons, including 1st respondent in all the appeals travelled in violation of policy terms and conditions. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2. The offending vehicle is goods carriage vehicle and it is not meant for carrying passengers. At the time of accident, more than 11 persons, including 1st respondent in all the appeals travelled in violation of policy terms and conditions. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2. The Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant-Insurance Company from its liability and prayed for setting aside the awards of the Tribunal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondents contended that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent in all the appeals travelled in the Van to attend a family function. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent. At the time of accident, the insurance policy issued by the appellant was in force. The Tribunal considering the violation of terms of insurance policy, ordered pay and recovery. There is no error in the awards of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of all the appeals. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 1st respondents and perused the materials available on record. 14. It is the contention of the appellant in the counter statements that the 1st respondents and others travelled in the goods carrier vehicle as passengers. They travelled as gratuitous passengers. The appellant examined R.W.1 to prove their contention and referred to Ex.P1 – FIR, wherein it has been stated that more than 11 persons travelled at the time of accident. In the claim petitions also, the 1st respondent in all the appeals have stated that they travelled as passengers in the Van i.e., goods carrier. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in all the appeals also admitted that the 1st respondents travelled to attend the family function in the offending vehicle. The Tribunal considering the above materials, gave a finding that the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle permitted the passengers to travel in the goods vehicle in violation of policy condition. Having held so, the Tribunal erroneously ordered pay and recovery, directing the appellant to pay at the first instance and recover the same from the 2nd respondent, on the ground that the policy issued by the appellant was in force. Having held so, the Tribunal erroneously ordered pay and recovery, directing the appellant to pay at the first instance and recover the same from the 2nd respondent, on the ground that the policy issued by the appellant was in force. It is well settled now that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the gratuitous passengers or the legal heirs of the deceased gratuitous passengers who traveled in the goods vehicle. There is no coverage for the passengers in the goods vehicle. When there is no statutory coverage, it cannot be stated that there is only violation of policy condition and Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The issue whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the unauthorized passengers is decided by this Court in the judgment reported in 2018 (2) TNMAC 731 DB (Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Aandi and others), as follows: “49.We find that the judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another referred to supra in support of its conclusion that the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same even in respect of a gratuitous passenger or an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle, do not support the said conclusion. 50.In fact, we find that in none of the judgments referred to viz., National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (1) TN MAC 104 (SC) : 2004 (3) SCC 297 ; Mangla Ram V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 (1) TN MAC 681 (SC) : 2018 (5) SCC 656 ; Rani & ors. v. National Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors., 2018 (2) TN MAC 278 (SC) : 2018 (9) Scale 310 ; and Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, 2017 (1) TN MAC 289 (SC) : 2017 (4) SCC 796 , the question regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in respect of an unauthorized Passenger in the Goods Vehicle did arise for consideration. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the Judgment of the Two-Judge Bench in Shivaraj v. Rajendra and another referred to supra cannot be taken as a precedent to conclude that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the Compensation even in respect of an unauthorized Passenger, in a Goods Vehicle, in the light of categorical India Assurance Company v. Asha Rani and others; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, referred to supra. We therefore conclude that the Tribunal, in the case on hand, was not right in directing the Insurance Company to pay the Compensation and giving it the liberty to recover the same from the Owner. 51. No doubt true that in many cases the claimants may not be able to realise the award amount from the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. But, the said factual situation alone cannot impel us to do something against the provisions of the statute and the decisions of the larger benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.” The Hon'ble Apex Court considering various judgments regarding this issue, allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, setting aside the portion of the award directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation. The ratio of the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the well settled judicial pronouncement, the portion of the award passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the 1st respondent in all the appeals at the first instance and recover the same from the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle is set aside and the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle is directed to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant in all the appeals. 15. In the result, all the appeals are allowed and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.7,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively along with interest and costs are confirmed. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 29, 31, 30, 34, 28, 33 & 27 of 2010. On such deposit, the 1st respondents in all the appeals are permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs. 32, 29, 31, 30, 34, 28, 33 & 27 of 2010. On such deposit, the 1st respondents in all the appeals are permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs. The appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the award amount, if any, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 29, 31, 30, 34, 28, 33 & 27 of 2010, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. It is also made clear that if the 1st respondents/claimants have already withdrawn the award amount, the appellant/Insurance Company is not entitled to recover the same from the 1st respondents/claimants. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.