A. K. MATHUR, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the award dated 7. 12. 1993 by the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdol in Claim Case No. 32 of 1990 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and a compensation of Rs. 1,44,000 was awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 22. 9. 1989. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6. 5. 1989, a truck bearing No. CPA 3759 was going from Shahdol to bodari. Deceased Ramkhelawan had gone to Shahdol market where he made certain purchases and was coming back to Bodari, he boarded the truck aforesaid from Singh-pur Road along with his goods and paid a sum of Rs. 50 to the driver. It is alleged that some more labourers met on the way and they also boarded the truck. It is alleged that on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver, it got overturned near village Fateh-pur as a result of which Ramkhelawan along with three other persons died and some more persons received injuries. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition for compensation. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the deceased was having a cloth and kirana shop and was also doing the job of grain merchant. It is alleged that he was earning Rs. 1,600 per month and had agricultural income of rs. 12,000 per year. It is alleged that th of his earning, he was spending on himself and rest used to give to the family. Thus the family was getting a sum of Rs. 1,950 per month. The age of the deceased is said to be 40 years at the time of incident. It is alleged that he would have lived up to the age of 70 years. The claimants, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 7,02,000 towards compensation. ( 4 ) THE vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant, the Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. The plea of the non-applicant-non-claimant No. 1 is that he had transferred the vehicle in question on 15. 9. 1987 in favour of the non-claimant no. 4 Sardara Singh and non-claimant no. The claimants, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 7,02,000 towards compensation. ( 4 ) THE vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant, the Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. The plea of the non-applicant-non-claimant No. 1 is that he had transferred the vehicle in question on 15. 9. 1987 in favour of the non-claimant no. 4 Sardara Singh and non-claimant no. 2 Phool Chand Soni was driving the vehicle in the employment of the non-claimant No. 4 Sardara Singh. No reply was filed by the non-claimant No. 2 driver. The appellant herein denied all allegations and also pleaded that the liability is up to rs. 1,50,000. It was also contended on behalf of the insurance company that the vehicle in question is a goods carrier and it was not registered for taking passengers and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The non-claimant No. 4 denied that the vehicle in question was driven in rash and negligent manner. ( 5 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed five issues. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner and the deceased was going in the vehicle along with his goods. It is also found that the age of the deceased was 50 years as per medical evidence. The learned Tribunal worked out the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 1,500 out of which he might be spending 1/3rd amount on himself. As such the dependency of the family was worked out to Rs. 1,000 per month. The tribunal applied the multiplier of 12 and calculated the amount of compensation as Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 12 = Rs. 1,44,000. The learned Tribunal awarded the sum of rs. 1,44,000 to the claimants towards compensation along with interest. Aggrieved by this award, the present appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. It is also true that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his goods. Ltd. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. It is also true that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his goods. Learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the vehicle was insured for transporting goods and not passengers; therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with this liability. Suffice it to say that similar contention was considered by this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamarin, 1997 (2) MPLJ 107 and shanker Prasad v. Malti Devi, 1998 ACJ 860 (MP) and the same was negatived relying on the decision of Hon. Supreme court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chdravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC ). It was held therein that if the deceased travels in the goods vehicle with his goods for its security, then it cannot be said that there is any breach of condition of the insurance policy and the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation. In the present case also, the deceased was travelling with his goods for their safety and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation. In view of the law laid down by this court in the cases aforementioned the view taken by the learned tribunal appears to be justified. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant insurance company has not disputed the quantum of compensation. More so, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs. 1,44,000 which is below the ceiling of Rs. 1,50,000. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is well founded and does not warrant any interference by this court. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. Appeal dismissed. .