JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant appeal, the owner/insurer has assailed Award dated 01.03.2019 passed by Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in MACP No. 19-T/2 of 2014 on the ground that he was entitled for indemnification from insurer/respondent No.5 herein. 2. Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-63-1602 (Bolero Camper) manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra was owned by the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the “owner”). On 03.10.2013, the above said vehicle met with an accident at place near Janol, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by the owner. One of the occupants of the vehicle Shri Jeet Bahadur died as a result of injuries suffered by him due to accident. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) preferred petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) claiming compensation against the owner and the insurer by alleging the acts of rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle by the owner. 3. The claimants averred in the claim petition that deceased Shri Jeet Bahadur was labourer in the offending vehicle and he was engaged for loading and unloading cement, sand and steel from Kotkhai. It was further submitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with Shri Gian Chand. 4. The owner in his reply to the claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal submitted that the deceased Shri Jeet Bahadur was engaged for loading and unloading purpose. It was also averred that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in the capacity of owner of goods as he was carrying the Karyana items from Kotkhai to village Reog. He further admitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with Shri Gian Singh and the deceased was engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading of iron, sand and cement from Kotkhai. 5. The insurer also contested the claim petition on various grounds and for the purpose of adjudication of this petition, it will be sufficient to notice that one of the specific objection raised on behalf of the insurer was that it was not liable to pay compensation as deceased was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger. 6. Learned tribunal framed the following issues: 1. 6. Learned tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 03.10.2013, deceased Jeet Bahadur died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HP-63-1602, being driven by Kishori Lal, as prayed for? ...OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount, if so, from whom and what extent?...OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as deceased Jeet Bahadur was traveling in the light of goods vehicle No. HP-63-1602 (Bolero Camper) as a gratuitous passenger, as alleged?...OPR 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged?..OPR 5. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged?..OPR. 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, as alleged?... OPR. 7. Relief. 7. Issues No.1, 2 and 4 were decided in affirmative. Issues No.5 and 6 were decided in negative. While deciding issue No.3 though the petition was held to be maintainable, but the deceased was held as gratuitous passenger. Petition was allowed and the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.14,75,200/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization. However, the insurer was exonerated and the owner was held liable to satisfy the claim. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the entire record. 9. Learned counsel for the owner/appellant contended that the liability to satisfy the award was wrongly fastened upon the owner, whereas, it was well established on record that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as owner of goods. In alternative, he contended that in any case the deceased was travelling with Shri Gian Chand as labourer engaged for the purpose of loading/unloading of material carried by Shri Gian Chand in the vehicle. According to learned counsel for the owner, in view of the proved facts, the deceased could not be said to be a gratuitous passenger. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer has defended the award. It has been submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly passed award against the owner as deceased did not fall under any of the categories contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. 11. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer has defended the award. It has been submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly passed award against the owner as deceased did not fall under any of the categories contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. 11. Adverting to the rival submissions of the parties, it will be relevant to notice the facts proved on record by way of evidence led by the parties before the learned tribunal. One of the claimants i.e. the wife of deceased Smt. Nandika appeared as PW-3. She tendered her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. It was specifically stated that the deceased was engaged as a labourer for loading and unloading of cement, sand and iron from Kotkhai. There was not even a whisper in her statement that the deceased had hired the vehicle for carrying his Karyana or any other articles. In her crossexamination on behalf of the owner, it was suggested to PW-3 that on the date of accident her husband Shri Jeet Bahadur was engaged for loading and unloading of building material. Shri Gian Chand, another occupant of the vehicle was examined as PW-2 by the owner. His examination-in-chief was tendered by way of affidavit Ex. RW2/A. This witness did not state that deceased Jeet Bahadur was travelling in the vehicle as owner of goods. Rather, he stated that the deceased was engaged as labourer by him for loading and unloading of building material. Another piece of evidence on record is the statement of RW-4, ASI Muni Lal, who had partly investigated the case, in pursuance to FIR No. 45 of 2013, registered in relation with the accident in question. He stated on oath that he had visited the spot on 05.10.2013 and during investigation he had not found that any articles belonging to deceased were also being carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. He further stated that the goods/material of Shri Gian Chand was found to be carried in the vehicle. During the course of cross-examination of this witness on behalf of the owner, he admitted that the building material was loaded in the vehicle at the time of accident. He was not contradicted as regards his statement with respect to the fact that no articles belonging to deceased were found to be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. He was not contradicted as regards his statement with respect to the fact that no articles belonging to deceased were found to be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. As against this, it is the sole testimony of owner as RW-1, who reiterated his stand that deceased was travelling as owner of goods. He could not support his contention with any corroborative material. 12. The above evidence led the tribunal to the conclusion that deceased Shri Jeet Bahadur was not proved to be the owner of the goods. No fault can be found with the findings so recorded by the learned tribunal, in light of material discussed above. The owner had obvious reason, to coin defence regarding the status of deceased as owner of goods carried in the vehicle, with a view to avoid the liability to pay compensation. Noticeably, from the statements of PW-3 Smt. Nandika and RW-2 Shri Gian Chand, it was clearly established that deceased was travelling in the vehicle with Shri Gian Chand for the purpose of loading/unloading of building material of said Shri Gian Chand carried in the vehicle. Even the owner has not denied this fact. In his reply as well as in his statement as RW-1 he submitted that the deceased was engaged for loading and unloading of building material carried by Shri Gian Chand in the vehicle. The owner did not take a stand that deceased was his employee or was engaged by him as a labourer. 13. The inevitable conclusion from evidence on record is that the deceased was engaged as a labourer for specific purpose of loading and unloading by Shri Gian Chand. In such capacity, he was travelling in the vehicle along with the owner of goods Shri Gian Chand. 14. Now weighing the rival submissions of the owner and the insurer against the factual position proved on record, no interference is warranted with the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal. Deceased was not proved to be the owner of goods. He was not the employee of the owner. At the most, he was simply a labourer engaged by Shri Gian Chand, who was carrying the building material in the vehicle. It is more that settled that term “any person” in Section 147 of the Act relates only to a third party and a passenger in Goods Carriage Vehicle is not a third party. At the most, he was simply a labourer engaged by Shri Gian Chand, who was carrying the building material in the vehicle. It is more that settled that term “any person” in Section 147 of the Act relates only to a third party and a passenger in Goods Carriage Vehicle is not a third party. There is no dispute that the vehicle involved in the case was a Goods Carriage Vehicle. The insurer would only be liable to indemnify the owner either in respect of claim arising out of the death or bodily injury to third party or to the owner of goods or his authorised representative or the employee of the owner of vehicle, who falls within the categories provided in sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act. 15. As noticed above, the deceased did not fall in any of such categories. Learned Tribunal has rightly held that the insurer will not be liable, even if, the deceased was considered to be the authorised representative of Shri Gian Chand. Placing reliance on judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors., (2014)14 SCC 243 , learned Tribunal has rightly held that Section 147 contemplated either the owner of goods or his authorised representative and since in the facts of the case the owner of goods and his representative, both were travelling together, the benefit to the owner of vehicle, of indemnification by insurer, will not be available. 16. Learned counsel for the claimants tried to persuade this Court by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Raj vs. Rajender and others, reported in (2018)10 SCC 432 , wherein the insurer was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants in the first instance and to subsequently recovered the same from the owner. On the strength of aforesaid judgment, he contended that even if the deceased was to be held as a gratuitous passenger, the insurer still should be directed to pay compensation to the claimants in the first instance and to recover it from the insured later. 17. On the strength of aforesaid judgment, he contended that even if the deceased was to be held as a gratuitous passenger, the insurer still should be directed to pay compensation to the claimants in the first instance and to recover it from the insured later. 17. The contention so raised merits rejection for the reason; firstly that there is no provision in the Act which allows the insurer to pay in the first instance and recover later from the insured where the claim relates to gratuitous passenger in a Goods Carriage Vehicle and secondly in view of the law settled in New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ (1), National Insurance Co. vs. Baljeet Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 . Both these judgments by three judges benches expounded the law with respect to liability of insurer to indemnify the insured in respect of claims arising out of death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in a Goods carriage Vehicle and held in favour of insurer. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company ltd. Vs Parvathneni in (2018) 9 SCC 657 has kept the question of law open on the issue whether the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can direct the insurer to pay and recover, where the liability otherwise does not arise in case of gratuitous passenger. This court while expressing above view has drawn support from judgment passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aandi reported in 2019 ACJ 1975 . 18. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, Award dated 01.03.2019 passed by Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in MACP No. 19-T/2 of 2014 is affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of.