- (1.) IN this appeal by the owner of the vehicle, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether in a case where the persons were forced by the police toboard in a goods carrying vehicle, the Insurance Company can be held liable. This question has been answered by this Court in M.A. No. 386 of 2007 arising out of the same accident. The concluding portion of the judgment reads as under: "As noticed above, the truck was loaded with stone boulders and 12 -13 persons as labourers were already sitting on the truck. The deceased along with other persons boarded the truck which was carrying boulders. Neither the Statute nor the condition of the policy permits the owner or the driver of the vehicle to allow any person other than the labourers in a goods carrying vehicle. Prima facie, therefore, there is statutory as well as contractual violation of the policy conditions. Even assuming that the police officer of Gary police station forced the deceased and other person to board the truck, on that ground the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of compensation. In the case relied upon by Mr. Lal, the question which fell for consideration was as to whether driving a motor vehicle without any valid license and without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, can be held to be a willful violation. In our view, the principle laid down in the aforementioned case will not apply in the facts of the present case. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and the law discussed above, we find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the Insurance Company has not liability in case of death or bodily injury to a person traveling in a goods carrying vehicle. This appeal has no merit which is accordingly, dismissed.  This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.;