M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the appellant learned advocate as also the respondents' learned advocate. The incident had taken place in the year 1985 and the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,000/ -. The respondent who is an agriculturist is supposed to have been waiting at the bus stop along with another person when a truck approached that place and the cleaner of the truck shouted out to the waiting persons that anyone who desires to be taken in the truck should get in. According to the respondents who are the original claimants, they had visited Hassan and had made certain purchases and they were on their way to their village, and when the truck stopped they boarded the truck along with the material that they had purchased which in this case happens to be jaggery and coconuts. While proceeding, the truck was driven in such a manner that instead of travelling on the road it dashed against a tree and the two occupants who were agriculturists sustained injuries. The present order arises out of the claim petition filed by them. The present respondent had sustained one injury of some consequence namely fracture of the public bone apart from two other minor injuries and came to be awarded compensation of Rs. 16,000/ -. The appeal had been preferred by the Insurance Company and, is directed against that order. ( 2 ) THE appellant's learned advocate has advanced a submission on a point of law in so far as he submits that it is well settled that no passengers are permitted to be carried in a goods vehicle and he submits that in the present instance it is undisputed that the truck was a goods vehicle and that the two claimants were unauthorised occupants of that vehicle. He relies on the observation made by the Tribunal wherein the reference to what they were carrying is described as luggage" and learned advocate submits that this clearly puts the claimants within the category of a passenger who was in the course of travel and was carrying certain belongings of his which answer to the definition of "luggage". He relies on the observation made by the Tribunal wherein the reference to what they were carrying is described as luggage" and learned advocate submits that this clearly puts the claimants within the category of a passenger who was in the course of travel and was carrying certain belongings of his which answer to the definition of "luggage". He points out "that the term "goods" has been defined in the Act and that consequently what was being carried by the claimant cannot answer to the description of goods and so far as it was his luggage or personal belongings even if the claimant was accompanying them, he would not come within the exclusion as enunciated by the Division bench. He therefore submits that the very basis of the order awarding compensation is unjustified in so far as the liabilities are not covered by the policy and therefore, the order passed against the Insurance Company will have to be set aside. ( 3 ) THE respondents learned advocate has met this argument by pointing out to me that even though the learned Member has used the expression "luggage" that the Court will have to scrutinise the record and he demonstrates to me that the items which were being carried were not parcel or personal belongings but that it consisted of rice, coconut and jaggery. He submits that these items would be definitely within the definition of goods and that the overall evidence is to the effect that the claimant had purchased them and was on his way to his village. He submits that if the claimant transported these goods in the truck as there was no need for him to hire the whole of a vehicle for that small quantity and that he accompanied those goods, that he would come within the exclusion as carved out by the Division Bench. Having scrutinised the record, I am in agreement with the respondents' learned advocate that the incorrect description by the learned Member cannot disqualify the claimant from compensation. ( 4 ) IT is true that the claimant did not produce any evidence whatsoever, not even medical evidence in support of his claim and the learned Member has done a rough estimate of what would be fair and just compensation under the various heads and awarded it. ( 4 ) IT is true that the claimant did not produce any evidence whatsoever, not even medical evidence in support of his claim and the learned Member has done a rough estimate of what would be fair and just compensation under the various heads and awarded it. This is not an either safe or correct method of proceeding and I need to observe here that serious note will have to be taken by the advocates who "misconduct" these cases before the Tribunal. This Court has repeatedly and regularly come across an absolutely haphazard, cavalier and virtually unprofessional approach as far as the conduct of the cases before the Motor Accidents claims tribunal is concerned and the lawyers conducting these cases will take serious note of the fact that the time is not far when this Court will have to direct appropriate action against them if the case has virtually gone by default because of them. This will be apart from action that may be instituted by the clients for professional misconduct and damages. ( 5 ) THE more important aspect of the matter is that in case after case this Court has come, across situations wherein poor and illiterate persons are found travelling in goods vehicles obviously out of a sense of ignorance and totally oblivious of the fact that under the law, they are totally disqualified from any compensation in the event of death or injury. This is very unfair to them and this unsatisfactory state of affairs which is only on the increase has arisen because of the total and object negligence on the part of the law enforcement authorities in putting a stop to these illegal acts. The highways in this State have turned into death traps and nobody either from the police force or the State Government is one bit concerned over what is happening because obviously their approach is that human life is very cheap in this country. This Court does not subscribe to such a view and it is necessary to remind the concerned authorities in the State government and particularly the Police Department that it is their duty to ensure that the rules of the road and norms of safety particularly those which are requirements of law are enforced and abided by. ( 6 ) KARNATAKA's highways, tragically enough, have the country's lowest safety record and the highest accident rate. ( 6 ) KARNATAKA's highways, tragically enough, have the country's lowest safety record and the highest accident rate. This is traceable to astounding apathy at official quarters, zero levels of highway supervision compounded with the ever familiar degrees of corruption all of which have left the truck drivers a free hand in killing and maiming a fair section of the population. The hon'ble Minister has unabashedly informed the Assembly on 30. 7. 97 that is the course of the last one year 16,000 persons has been killed and 28,400 injured. 40% of the persons were illegal occupants of trucks and tractor-trailers. An ignorant farmer or a villager cannot be blamed for what he does nor can the insurance companies be made to pay for their mistakes. There can be no compromises in matters of safety and the time has come, in the public interest, to shake the errant officials out of their indolence and to curb corrupt practices in order to save human life. The transport authorities shall therefore ensure that all trucks, tractors and LCV's prominently display a sign in the regional language that carriage of passengers is prohibited. The insurance companies shall attach a prominent sticker to the proposal forms and the policies, printed in red that the Company shall not be liable if any passengers are carried in the goods vehicle. The State government shall set up Highway Patrols, who shall ensure compliance with safety norms on all the State Highways and in particular a full stop shall be put to the carriage of any passengers in any goods vehicle. There shall also be set up vigilance bodies to police the police in a determined effort to contain the corruption levels that are the root cause of the chaos that has reached malignant dimensions. ( 7 ) A survey was conducted recently on the Hosur Road and the Tumkur Road as also on the mysore Road and it was found that out of a total of 480 trucks that were checked, that in every single case anything from 4-12 passengers were being carried illegally in the vehicle. The breach of the law was 100%. The next day a similar operation was carried out alongside the office of the deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic and 38 trucks were checked - once again the breach was 100%. The breach of the law was 100%. The next day a similar operation was carried out alongside the office of the deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic and 38 trucks were checked - once again the breach was 100%. This demonstrates the supervision levels in and around our State Capital - the serious question is being asked is as to why Crores of Rupees of the taxpayers money is being wasted on the Traffic Control Dept. ( 8 ) A copy of the judgment shall be sent by the Registrar General to the Director General of police, Karnataka State and to the Home Minister of the Karnataka Government. Both the authorities shall be requested to acknowledge the receipt of the judgment and shall indicate as to whether or not it is possible for the concerned authorities to ensure that proper patrolling is undertaken on the highways and that everyone of the traffic regulations and the laws are properly enforced. If it is not possible for them to do so, they shall report back to this Court and appropriate directions will then be issued. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of, the copy of the Judgment. ( 9 ) ON the facts of the present case, I see no ground on which interference is called for. The appeal fails and accordingly stands disposed of. Interim order to stand vacated.