( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by respondent No. 3, the insurance company, against the judgment and award dated September 10, 1984, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. II, bijapur, in M. V. C. No. 32 of 1983, awarding compensation of Rs. 31, 600 on account of the death of Ningappa Waddar. ( 2 ) THE deceased , Ningappa Waddar, and another boarded the lorry in question at Solapur cross near Horti village on January 29, 1983, at about 2. 24 p. m. after loading their grinding stones. The said lorry was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. As a result of it, the said, ningappa sustained fatal injuries and died. Hence, the claim petition by the legal representatives of the deceased, Ningappa. ( 3 ) IT was resisted by the other side. ( 4 ) THE trial court, on appreciation of the evidence, awarded Rs. 31,600 to the legal representatives of the deceased, Ningappa, as compensation. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company. ( 5 ) THAT the accident took place on account of the rash or negligent driving is well substantiated by the material on record. That question cannot be challenged by the insurance company. But whatever it is, the material on record amply proves that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle in question. ( 6 ) THAT the deceased, Ningappa, died on account of fatal injuries caused to him in the accident is not disputed and it is well substantiated by the material on record. That the present claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased is not also disputed and cannot be disputed. ( 7 ) THE only point canvassed by Shri Sowriraju , the learned counsel for the appellant, is whether the insurance company can be held liable to pay the amount of compensation when the lorry itself had been hired by the deceased, Ningappa. ( 8 ) THE material on record establishes that for transporting the grinding stones, charges were paid by him. Rule 161 does not require that the entire lorry should be hired. ( 8 ) THE material on record establishes that for transporting the grinding stones, charges were paid by him. Rule 161 does not require that the entire lorry should be hired. Even if a person carries some goods in the lorry and pays hire charges for the transportation of the same and even if those goods might cover only a portion of the lorry, still it would amount to the hiring of the lorry within the meaning of rule 161 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the said contention of Shri Sowriraju. This court has laid down in T. M. Renukappa v. Fahmida AIR1980 Kant 25 , AIR1980 KAR 25 , [1982 ]52 compcas634a (Kar ), ILR1979 KAR 2324 , 1979 (2 )Karlj103 , that if the owner of the goods travels in the lorry while he has been transporting his goods in the lorry on paying hire charges, the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation. That accords with the view we have taken above. ( 9 ) SO far as compensation is concerned, it appears to err on the side of leniency. Therefore, under these circumstances , we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. ( 10 ) SHRI Sowriraju, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that he seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not find that any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court is involved in this case. Hence, his