JUDGEMENT : 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23rd February, 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (‘MACT’ for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 91 of 2006. By the Judgment and Award the learned Chaiman MACT, Akola has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% from the date of application till realization to the claimants and then recover the same from respondent No.1-Owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Brief facts are as under; The petitioner and the present respondent nos.1 and 2 filed their Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- arising out of accidental death of Prakash Ingle, who died in an accident caused on 25th October, 2005, while he was travelling as a passenger by Matador No. MH 28 H 6312 owned by present respondent no.3 and driven by present respondent No.4. The said vehicle was insured with appellant. 3. The claim is resisted only by appellant-Insurance Company by filing its written statement (Exh.31). The appellant-Insurance Company denied the accident in question and claimed that the offending vehicle was not properly maintained and was in substandard condition. Therefore, it claimed that it is not responsible to pay any compensation. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company also resisted the claim on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the offending vehicle was not supposed to carry passengers as per terms and conditions of the policy. 5. Upon considering the evidence on record, the learned Chairman, MACT, Akola allowed the Claim Petition. Although the learned Chairman, MACT held that there being breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation but while passing the final order directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and recover from the owner of the offending vehicle in the same execution proceedings. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the Judgment and Award, which is under challenge in the present Appeal. 6. Mr. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the Judgment and Award, which is under challenge in the present Appeal. 6. Mr. Limaye, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently submits that the learned Chairman, MACT committed grave error while directing the appellant -Insurance Company to pay the award amount first to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner / respondent No.1 despite holding that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. According to learned Counsel, the learned Chairman, MACT failed to appreciate that the insurer in no case is liable to pay compensation in case of death or injury the persons travelling in Goods vehicle and neither the owner is statutorily bound to cover risk of passengers nor the insurer is statutorily bound to issue such coverage of risk of passengers carrying in Goods Vehicles which by provisions of law itself is not permissible. The learned Counsel in support of his submission also placed reliance in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2003 ACJ 1 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chaturaben Bhurabhai Pipaliya and Others, 2014 ACJ 249 . 7. Respondent No.1 to 4 though duly served on merits remained absent. 8. The only short question in the present Appeal which I am required to decide is whether the learned Chairman, MACT was justified in law to direct the appellant-Insurance Company to pay and then recover the compensation amount, although it held that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, I may also make it clear at the outset that the findings so recorded by learned Chairman, MACT regarding the breach of terms and conditions of policy are not assailed by the respondents-claimants in any manner. 9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cholleti Bhartamma and others, (2008) 1 SCC 423 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Motor Vehicles Act does not contemplate the goods carriage vehicle shall carry a large number of passengers with a small percentage of goods as the insurance policy considerably covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative. The provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and the insurers would not be liable therefor. The provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and the insurers would not be liable therefor. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the words “injury to any person” referred in Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V. Act would only means third party and not a passenger travelling in a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. So also the policy covers the liability of owner or representative of the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle for the safety of goods carried in vehicle confines to such owner of goods under transportation or his representative actually travelling in cabin of the goods vehicle and not otherwise. 10. Similarly, in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Asha Rani and Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the purport of Section 147 of the M.V. Act and in para Nos. 25 and 26 observed as under:- “25. Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of ‘public service vehicle’. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a ‘goods carriage’. 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 Act vis-a-vis 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words ‘any person’ must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used, i.e., ‘a third party’. Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor.” 11. From the above pronouncements, what is clear is that a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle whether carriages or otherwise would not come in the definition of third party. From the above pronouncements, what is clear is that a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle whether carriages or otherwise would not come in the definition of third party. In the instant case, there is clear cut findings of learned Chairman, MACT that the deceased was travelling as a passenger and this being so, the appellant-Insurance Company could not be held liable for payment towards compensation, inasmuch as there was clear cut breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. In the case in hand, once it is held by the learned Chairman, MACT, after considering over all evidence and documents on record, that the deceased was travelling as a passenger then the learned Chairman, MACT should have been desisted from giving any direction to Insurance Company to first pay and then recover from the owner of the offending vehicle. Rather, claim against the Insurance Company should have been dismissed and the Award should have been passed against the driver and owner of the vehicle. In the circumstance, the claim against the Insurance Company is required to be dismissed. 12. In view of above, this Appeal deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I pass the following order:- ORDER 1. The Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 91 of 2006 is dismissed qua the original non-applicant No.3 i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. It is clarified that the Claim Petition is dismissed only qua non-applicant No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Chairman, MACT, Akola against the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is undisturbed and the claimants are at liberty to recover the compensation amount so awarded from the owner and driver of the vehicle.