JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.95, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the Award dated 10.1.95 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur. 2. Respondent-claimants Smt. Ganeshi Bai, Gop Singh and Mohini filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, on the allegations that deceased Chaman Singh Rajput was travelling alongwith two baskets of vegetables in Truck No. RJY 4887 after paying the freight of the two baskets of the vegetables of the driver of the truck as he used to sell the vegetable in the market. He sat on the truck as the owner of those two baskets of vegetables after paying the freight of the two baskets. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, on the steep rise in Barodiya Ghati Iswal, Udaipur, the truck over-turned and Chaman Singh and two other persons, namely, Daulat Singh and Ganesh Singh, who were, also, carrying their vegetables, came under the truck and Chaman Singh died on the spot. The claimants, therefore, prayed that the compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- may be awarded to them. This claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company as well as by the owner of the truck. The learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, came to the conclusion that the truck over-turned on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Ganesh Singh, which resulted in the death of Chaman Singh and causing injuries to Daulat Singh and Ganesh Singh. The learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, held that the deceased used to pay Rs. 1000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 12,000/- per year to his family for their maintenance and, therefore, he applied the multiplier of twelve and awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- as compensation and, also, awarded Rs. 15,000/- as loss of consortium and in all awarded Rs. 1,59,000/- to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred a miscellaneous appeal before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide His judgment dated 24.5.95. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred this special appeal. 3. 1,59,000/- to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred a miscellaneous appeal before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide His judgment dated 24.5.95. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred this special appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the truck was already booked from different places and was fully loaded with soap stone and Gur bags and the driver gave lift to Chaman Singh, Daulat Singh and Ganesh Singh and took them as the passengers by charging money from them and, therefore, neither the owner of the truck nor the insurance company is liable for making payment of the amount of compensation. The owner of the truck nowhere allowed the driver of the truck to allow the passengers to sit in the truck and, therefore, taking the passengers in the truck was out-side the scope and authority of the driver and the liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be extended to them for taking unauthorised passengers in the truck by the driver. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. It is true that the truck was already loaded with soap stone and Gur bags but the vegetable sellers Chaman Singh, Daulat Singh and Genesh Singh also, got their luggage, i.e., vegetable baskets, booked with the driver and paid the freight thereof. It was within the competence of the driver to have taken goods to a destination. Chaman Singh, Daulat Singh and Genesh Singh booked their vegetable bags with the driver for carrying them to Udaipur and paid the freight for those baskets. They were not merely the passengers but were, also, the owners of their vegetable baskets which they had booked and paid the freight therefor and for the custody of those goods, i.e., the vegetable baskets, they travelled in the truck and, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the truck, in any way, exceeded his authority. The judgment : Maimuna Begurn and Ors. v. Taju and Ors., 1988 ACJ 417 , on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in Maimuna Begum and Ors. v. Taju and Ors. The judgment : Maimuna Begurn and Ors. v. Taju and Ors., 1988 ACJ 417 , on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in Maimuna Begum and Ors. v. Taju and Ors. case, only the passengers were taken which was held to be "not within the authority of the driver" as the driver of the truck was not authorised and entitled to carry-on any passenger; while in the present case, the truck driver booked the luggage of Chaman Singh, Daulat Singh and Genesh Singh after charging the freight and for the safe custody of their luggage, i.e., the vegetable bags, they travelled in the truck after paying the freight. As such the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, as well as the learned Single Judge, have committed no illegality or irregularity in awarding the compensation to the dependants of deceased Chaman Singh Rajput. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, does not require any interference. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this Civil Special Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******