JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Basav Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 & 7. 2. Aggrieved with award dated 24.02.2012 passed in M.V. Claim Case No.33 of 1999 by the District Judge I-cum-M.A.C.T. Giridih, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 3. Claimants Jankahi Khatoon and her minor children Sarifan Khatoon, Bijli Khatoon, Mister Ansari and Choti Ansari represented by her mother Jankahi Khatoon widow of late Ghiyasuddin have filed the claim application after death of her husband late Ghiyasuddin aged about 35 years, earning Rs. 5000/- per month who met with an accident occurred at about 6.00 P.M. on 09.01.1999 at Dumri Bermo Road near Gurutand Pool P.S. Nimiaghat District Giridih and died at the spot. It was further stated that the vehicle in question, a truck bearing no BHR 7191 was being driven rashly and negligently in the high speed coming towards Dehri and fell into the river from bridge and several persons including the deceased Ghiyasuddin resulting him spot death. This Ghiyasuddin along with others was sitting on the roof of the cabin of the truck at the time of accident. The vehicle in question was insured with the United India Assurance Co. Branch office at Giridih having Policy No. 210502/21/1/01104/98/99 valid from 17.11.1998 to 16.11.1999. It was disclosed that owner and driver of the vehicle was Sadakat Ansari at the time of accident. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted in the Sadar, Hospital, Giridh. The claimants have claimed the compensation of Rs. 5 lakh alongwith interest. 4. Learned tribunal after framing the issues decided the said claim by judgement dated 24.02.2012 and directed to pay 1,92,000.00 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants within 30 days from the receipt of that order and thereafter the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the insured i.e. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Md. Sadakat Ansari. 1 and 2 namely, Md. Sadakat Ansari. The Insurance company was further directed to pay the award to the claimants in the manner as given below i.e. 20% of the amount to each claimants and if the claimants are still minor shall be kept under fixed deposit in their names joint with their mother in the local branch of Bank till they reach to the age of majority with intimation to the Tribunal. The Insurance Company was further at liberty to deduct the interim compensation if awarded to claimants earlier. Aggrieved with that Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 5. Mr. Basav Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was traveling unauthorizedly in goods vehicle and for the illegality done by the owner liability upon the insurance company cannot be fastened. On these grounds he submits that the appeal is fit to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5-claimants submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the learned tribunal has given the direction to recover the said amount from the owner. 7. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 and 7 submits that there is no illegality in the award however the learned tribunal has erred in fixing liability upon the owner. 8. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the award and finds that while deciding Issue No. IV whether the alleged deceased Giyasuddin Ansari died as a gratuitous passenger of the Truck No. BHR 7191 arising out the said vehicle, learned tribunal has considered the deposition of A.W.1 as well as A.W.2. Exhibit-4 is postmortem report. A.W.1 who is one of the injured has stated that they usually come by the truck on the way from Colliery towards their house and also used to pay the fare equivalent to bus fare and so they usually paid Rs. 15/- per head to the truck driver and thereafter the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger with consent of the driver of the truck. 9. 15/- per head to the truck driver and thereafter the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger with consent of the driver of the truck. 9. The learned tribunal has further held that liability of the insurance company under new Act of 1988 prior to amendment in 1994 compensation can be claimed on account of death or bodly injury by owner of goods by his representative or gratuitous passenger. The amendment was in the year, 1994 and prior to 1994 the Insurance Company was free from the liability with respect to gratuitous passenger and on that ground the insurance company was directed to pay the amount in question and to recover the same from the owner. 10. Identical was the situation in the case of “Giriraj Prasad Agrawal V. Parwati Devi and Kali Paharin and Others, reported in 2005 (3) T.A.C. 115 (Jhar) before the Full Bench of this Court and in para 32 to 33 of the said judgment it was held as under:- “32. After giving my anxious consideration on the provisions of law and ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, I come to the following conclusion: (i) Carrying passengers more than covered by the insurance policy though amounts to committing breach of terms of policy, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay compensation with respect to the persons exceeding the number covered by the policy. In case Insurance Company is permitted to raise defence of limited liability on the basis of terms of policy, object of Section 147 would stand frustrated. Even otherwise, alleged breach of terms of policy by the insured may be an offence under the provisions of the Act, but surely that does not fall under Section 149 (2) (a) of the Act. (ii) The insurer can avoid its liability only if the conditions specified in Section 149 (2) are satisfied, and not otherwise. The statute recognizes no other condition for an insurer to escape its liability except those given in Section 149 (2) whatever the terms and conditions between the insurer and the insured may be. The terms of contract between the insured and the insurer determining their rights and liabilities towards each other are not and should not be confused with the statutory liability of the insurer for the third party risk. The terms of contract between the insured and the insurer determining their rights and liabilities towards each other are not and should not be confused with the statutory liability of the insurer for the third party risk. If there is a breach of contract on the part of the insured, the insurer may proceed against the insured. As far as third party risk is concerned, the liabilities being statutory, it cannot be overridden by terms of the contract of insurance between the parties. 33. I, therefore, hold that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jashmani Kongari, 2001 (1) J.L.J.R. 178 is not correct and is hereby overruled. The decision given by the Division Bench in Bholla Nath Yadav v. Hemwati & others, 2002 (2) J.L.J.R. 411 is affirmed.” 11. The Insurance Company in that case has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Full Bench in Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 and the order of the Full Bench was modified to the extent that the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount in question from the owner. 12. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court and modification by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed hereinabove it is crystal clear that right has already been kept intact by the learned tribunal and has rightly directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, the court comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned tribunal as right of recovery has been made therein. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 13. If the award is not satisfied, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award within six weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants are at liberty to move before the learned tribunal for the same. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal and the said amount shall be utilized in satisfying the award. 14. This appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A, if any, stands, disposed of.