JUDGMENT : Battu Devanand, J. 1. This Appeal was filed by the Appellant-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the decree and award, dated 01.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District in M.O.V.O.P. No. 67 of 2014. 2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal. 3. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner is resident of Pokkunuru Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District and he has been doing coolie works and earning an amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month. On 08.07.2010 at about 23-00 hours, the 1st responding being the driver of Lorry bearing No. A.P.04 U 3702, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding towards Hyderabad, dashed against the Lorry bearing No. A.P.16 TY 2915 from behind, wherein the petitioner and others travelling, resulting which the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner was taken to Area Hospital, Nandigama. Dr. P. Vasu Babu treated the petitioner and the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses. The doctors advised the petitioner to take bed rest for minimum three months. The hospital authorities issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. 4. A case in Crime No. 123 of 2010 under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the crime Lorry bearing No. A.P.04 U 3702 by the Kanchikacharla Police Station basing on the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner further averred that the 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd is the insurer of the crime vehicle. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. So, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. So, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the there is no rash and negligent driving of the alleged driver of the vehicle in question and the petition is misconceived, misleading, baseless and the petition is not maintainable and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the petitioner is very high, excessive and exorbitant and the same is out of all proportions. 7. During the course of trial, the petitioner was examined as PW. 1 and Exs. A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex. B.1 was marked. 8. The Tribunal after hearing rival contentions and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on record held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver and in the said accident the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until award and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of Award till the date of realization with proportionate costs by holding that the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the same in the Court within one month time from the date of award. The Tribunal further held that the 3rd respondent is at liberty to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the crime vehicle i.e., the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively without initiating any separate proceedings. Aggrieved by the decree and Award of the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 9. Heard, Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/3rd respondent and Sri Devadass Balantha, learned counsel for the claim petitioner/1st respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per Ex. A.1-FIR, Ex. A.8-Photostat copy of Insurance Policy and Ex. 9. Heard, Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/3rd respondent and Sri Devadass Balantha, learned counsel for the claim petitioner/1st respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per Ex. A.1-FIR, Ex. A.8-Photostat copy of Insurance Policy and Ex. B.1-Policy copy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the 1st respondent/claimant travelled as passenger in the cabin of crime vehicle un-authorizedly. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the crime vehicle is the goods vehicle and so no coverage to passenger in the cabin other than the driver, cleaner and owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal failed to see that the 1st respondent has not produced any medical bills to show that he has undergoing treatment in the hospital and no doctor was examined to prove Ex. A.2 wound certificate. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to set aside the decree and Award passed by the Tribunal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claim petitioner argued that the finding of the Tribunal is in accordance with the law and as such, no interference is required by this Hon'ble Court. 12. As seen from the evidence available on record, the injured person who is the claimant was examined as PW.1 and in his evidence, he categorically deposed that he himself and other two persons were travelling from Vijayawada to Nandigama in a Lorry bearing No. A.P.16 TY 2915 and a Lorry bearing No. A.P.09 U 3702 dashed the lorry in which the PW.1 is travelling and due to that accident he sustained injuries. 13. Admittedly, both the lorries i.e., in which the claimant is travelling and the lorry which dashed it both are meant for transportation of goods. It is settled law that in the goods carrying vehicle except driver, cleaner and owner of the goods transporting in that vehicle, or his/her representative, no other person is entitled to travel in the goods vehicle. If any other person travelled in the goods vehicle, he will be treated as unauthorized passenger. In the present case, as per the admission of the claimant, itself it establishes that he was travelling in the lorry bearing No. A.P.16 TY 2915 by paying Rs. If any other person travelled in the goods vehicle, he will be treated as unauthorized passenger. In the present case, as per the admission of the claimant, itself it establishes that he was travelling in the lorry bearing No. A.P.16 TY 2915 by paying Rs. 50/- towards charges and as such it is clear that he is a Fair Paid Passenger, who boarded the lorry, for which he is not entitled. 14. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Mintu Debnath and others, 2007 (2) GLT 490 wherein it was held that; "as per the law as it stood that day, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify a award passed in favour of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, if he was not the owner or authorized representative of the goods carried in the vehicle". 15. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company vehemently opposed the order of the Tribunal below directing the appellant/insurance company to deposit the compensation awarded within one month time from the date of award and grating liberty to the insurance company to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle i.e., the 2nd respondent and driver of the vehicle i.e., 1st respondent without initiating any separate proceedings. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company placed reliance on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Arati Chik@Sik and 2 others : GAULT 2019 (3) 47. 17. The Gauhati High Court in the above said decision (2nd supra) while considering the entire case law on this aspect whether the claims tribunals are entitled to direct the insurance company to pay and recover aspect held at para No. 36 as extracted hereunder: 36. In view of the aforesaid position of law, I am of the considered view that the direction of pay and recover made in Baljit Kaur, Saju P. Paul and Manuara Khatun by the Apex Court was in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and either in the peculiar facts of the case or in view of uncertainty on the point of view of law till then, as have been noted therein, to do complete justice between the parties. Since such a power is not available to a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended, it cannot go against the law settled to the effect that in case of a gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy an award and the owner is the person who shall be liable to pay the compensation and as such, any direction to the insurance company to satisfy the award first and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is incongruous. Therefore, the decision of the Claims Tribunal to follow a direction issued by the Supreme Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the present case is not accordance with law. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter of gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle and there being an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Claims Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the direction of the Claims Tribunal to the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded first to the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner later on is not sustainable and therefore, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, that part of the direction is set aside. Consequently, the owner-insurer is liable to satisfy the award and to pay the compensation to the respondent-claimant by depositing the awarded amount before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 3 (three) months from today. In the event of non-payment by the owner-insurer, it is for the respondent-claimant to take up appropriate proceeding before the Claims Tribunal to recover the compensation from the owner-insurer. The appellant-insurer shall be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit made in connection with the instant appeal. To the extent above, this appeal stands allowed. 18. On perusal of the above decision, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the Hon'ble Apex Court was in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties the direction of pay and recovery was passed. The Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are not vested with such power. The Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are not vested with such power. As such, the direction of the Tribunal below to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle at later stage is not sustainable. 19. For the above mentioned reasons, the decree and award dated 01.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District in M.O.V.O.P. No. 67 of 2014 to the extent that the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded first to the claimant and thereafter to recover the same from the owner and driver later on is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the part of the direction to pay and recovery is set aside. Consequently, the owner-insurer is liable to satisfy the award and to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent-claimant by depositing the awarded amount before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 3 (three) months from today. In the event of non-payment by the owner-insurer, it is for the respondent-claimant to take up appropriate proceedings before the Claims Tribunal to recover the compensation from the owner-insurer. The appellant-insurer shall be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit made in connection with the instant appeal. To the extent above, this appeal allowed in part. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.