D. H. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged by this appeal the judgment and final order of the M. A. C. Tribunal No. 1 Ahmedabad (Rural) Narol dated 26-3-1979 whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the opponents to pay to the respondent No. 1 original applicant Gordhanbhai Ambalal Barot a sum of Rs. 78 600 together with running interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the application till payment or realisation. ( 2 ) MR. R. H. Mehta the learned Advocate for the Appellant raised before us a sole issue as to whether the liability of the appellant was not limited only to the extent of Rs. 50 0 and that if it was so the Tribunal has erred in making it liable along with other respondents to the total extent of Rs. 78 600 with interest etc. The submission of Mr. Mehta is that the Tribunal has erred in not recognising the concerned vehicle bearing Registration No. 2472 as a goods vehicle as defined in sec. 2 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in treating the same vehicle as covered under clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act. Mr. Mehta cited before us the relevant sec. 2 (8) of the Act which relates to the definition of goods vehicle. It runs as under:"2 goods vehicle means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers". Mr. Mehta submitted that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle meant for the carriage of goods and as such the vehicle was covered by clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act. The said section runs as under:"95 Subject to the proviso to sub-sec. Mr. Mehta submitted that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle meant for the carriage of goods and as such the vehicle was covered by clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act. The said section runs as under:"95 Subject to the proviso to sub-sec. (1) a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits namely : (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all including the liabilities if any arising under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923 in respect of the death of or bodily injury to employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle". This section has been amended by Act 47 of 1982 and the words one lakh and fifty thousand rupees have been substituted for the words fifty thousand rupees with effect from 1-10-1982. The submission of Mr. Mehta therefore is that the vehicle being a goods vehicle the liability for the same was covered only to the tune of Rs. 50 0 as per sub-clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act. He further submitted that there is no justification therefore for treating the vehicle as falling under sec. 95 (2) (c) of the Act. In order to substantiate his argument Mr. Mehta invited our attention to the evidence of Raghuvir Malaram (witness No. 3 for the applicant) Exh. 25. The witness has stated during the course of his evidence I saw both the hands of the applicant sandwiched between the O. N. G. C. trailer-vehicle and the tree. Mr. Mehta also referred us to the cross-examination of the said witness wherein he has stated as under:"there was a big machine on the trailer". Mr. Mehtas submission was that the vehicle was not a goods vehicle once the trailer is attached to it which is used for carriage of goods the vehicle becomes a goods vehicle. However it is again required to be noticed that the evidence of Raghuvir Malaram is not the only evidence on the point. Shaikh Husen Sardarbhai (witness No. 1 for the opponents) Exh. 37 is a driver employed with the opponent No. 2 Oil and Natural Gas Commission and he has stated just to the contrary of what is stated by the aforesaid witness Raghuvir Malaram. Shaikh Husen Sardarbhai (witness No. 1 for the opponents) Exh. 37 is a driver employed with the opponent No. 2 Oil and Natural Gas Commission and he has stated just to the contrary of what is stated by the aforesaid witness Raghuvir Malaram. Shaikh Husen Sardarbhai has stated that he has been serving in the opponent No. 2 Commission as the driver of a cementing operator vehicle for the last about 14 years. In no uncertain terms he has stated: Goods cannot be loaded in such a vehicle. A passenger cannot also be taken in the back part of such a vehicle. Normally such a vehicle is driven on the road at a speed of 15 to 20 K. P. H. The front portion of the vehicle is 4 to 5 wide and back portion is little less in width. This vehicle is used on the drilling site. In his crossexamination he has stated: The registration number of my vehicle is GTD 2472. There was no trailer fixed to the vehicle. The vehicle is 10 wheel vehicle. It is pertinent to note that so far as this part of the evidence of Shaikh Husen is concerned there is no cross-examination whatever made on behalf of the appellant. Shaikh Husen has thus categorically stated that goods could not be loaded in the vehicle nor could a passenger be taken in the back part of such a vehicle. He has also stated that there was no trailer fixed to the vehicle. He must know things better than Raghuvir Malaram since he is in the nature of a chance witness whereas Shaikh Husen is a driver of the vehicle concerned. There is no cross-examination of Shaikh Husen by the appellant-Insurance Company on whose shoulders in fact the burden of issue No. 4 is cast. Issue No. 4 runs thus:"4 Whether the insurance company proves that its liability is limited ? If so to what extent ? ( 3 ) THUS the burden of proof is clearly on the Insurance Company to prove that its liability was limited and thus it was its duty to further prove that the vehicle concerned was a goods vehicle. No attempt whatever is made by the appellant-Insurance Company to discharge the onus of proving this issue. We have also perused the Panchnama of the vehicle (Exh. 76 ). It is stated inter alia in the Panchnama. No attempt whatever is made by the appellant-Insurance Company to discharge the onus of proving this issue. We have also perused the Panchnama of the vehicle (Exh. 76 ). It is stated inter alia in the Panchnama. it is pertinent to observe that there is no mention in the Panchnama of any trailer attached to the vehicle. Further it appears from the perusal of the Panchnama that the vehicle had a pump fitted upon it. Thus the relevant evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the vehicle was not a goods vehicle and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the vehicle falls within clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 95 of the Act is unassailable. ( 4 ) MR. Mehta submitted that even if the machine was fitted upon the vehicle it still remains a goods vehicle and therefore the vehicle is a goods vehicle With respect we are unable to agree with this interpretation put upon the term goods vehicle by Mr. Mehta. Goods vehicle means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers. The goods therefore must be such goods which are put on the vehicle for its carriage and if the machinery is fixed on the vehicle in a sense that it becomes permanently attached to it it would not be goods which place the vehicle within the definition of goods vehicle. Carriage of goods implies the loading of goods at one place and its unloading at its destination. If this is not so and if the goods are in the nature of something permanently fitted or fixed on the vehicle it would not satisfy the definition of goods vehicle. ( 5 ) WE wish to make it clear that it is only on the evidence of the driver of O. N. G. C. and the Panchnama on record and in absence of any other reliable evidence to the contrary that we have reached the conclusion that the vehicle involved in this incident was not a goods vehicle. ( 6 ) SINCE this was the only point canvassed before us and since we are not persuaded by the submissions made before us by Mr. Mehta the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .