JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 4-6- 1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of appellant claimants (for short 'the claimants') in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 549/1994 and against respondent Pratap Singh and Gokul Singh (appellant herein in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 549/1994) the driver and owner of the truck bearing No. Rs. RSJ 777 respectively. Since, both these appeals involve common question of facts and law and arise out of one and same judgment, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of together by a common judgment. 2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these appeals are that on 29-3-1991 deceased Samandar Nath, Kewal Nath, Jeevan Nath and Prem Nath were travelling in a truck bearing No. Rs. RSJ 777 from Ahemdabad to their village Balawa, District Bhilwara. When the said truck was playing near to Ratanpur, it turned turtled. Due to the accident, Samandar Nath sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Legal representative of deceased Samandar Nath, his wife Smt. Pyari and others filed a claim petition for compensation before the Tribunal. 3. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held the truck driver Pratap Singh negligent for the said accident. While deciding issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. While deciding issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that deceased Samandar Nath was travelling in a goods carriage and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable and, accordingly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the claimants as well as the owner of the truck Gokul Singh have filed afore noticed appeals. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties. 5. It is contended by Mr. K. L. Khatri learned counsel for the owner Gokul Singh that the deceased person was a labourer on the said truck and, therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability. He. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties. 5. It is contended by Mr. K. L. Khatri learned counsel for the owner Gokul Singh that the deceased person was a labourer on the said truck and, therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability. He. Further contends that the as per policy Exhibit-D1, the Insurance Company insured four labourers an thus the Insurance Company is under the legal obligation to indemnify the insured for death of or bodily injury to any person, to the extent of four persons. Learned counsel for the claimants also supported the contention raised by Mr. K. L. Khatri, learned counsel for the owner. 6. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company disputed the liability of the Insurance Company and contends that in the claim petition, the claimants specifically came with the case that the deceased along with afore- noticed persons was travelling in the said truck from Ahemdabad to his village Balawa, and it is neither the case of the claimants nor of the truck driver or owner that the deceased was engaged as labourer on the said truck. The fact pleaded in para No. 10 of the claim petition, was not denied by the truck driver and owner and the fact remained that the deceased and other persons were travelling from Ahemdabad to their village Balawa in the said truck and thus the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured for death of or bodily injury to the persons travelling in the goods carriage. 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 : ( AIR 2003 SC 607 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act which defines the "goods carriage" and Section 2(35) of the Act which defines "public service vehicle". The goods carriage means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. The public service vehicle means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. The public service vehicle means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. The Apex Court further considered clause (ii) of Section 95(c), which provides that a policy shall not be required to cover liability except where the vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of claim arises and held that so far as employees of the owner of the vehicle are concerned, an insurance policy was not required to be taken in relation to their liability other than arising in terms of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On the other hand, proviso (ii) appended to Section 95 of 1939 (old Act) enjoined a statutory liability upon the owner of the vehicle to take out an insurance policy to cover the liability in respect of a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment. The legislature has consciously not inserted the said provision in the Act. 8. It was further held that Section 147 of the Act inter alia prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a goods carriage. The word "any person" appearing in Section 147 of the Act, therefore, does not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured or any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurer would not be liable. 9. The appellant Gokul Singh, owner and driver of the truck has not pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was engaged as a labourer on the said truck. 9. The appellant Gokul Singh, owner and driver of the truck has not pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was engaged as a labourer on the said truck. Not only this, the only plea raised by the owner was with regard to negligence of the driver and in additional pleading the driver and owner came out with the case that due to spread of oil by some other vehicle on the road, when the driver of the truck applied brake, the truck slipped and turned turtled. 10. PW-2 Prem Nath, who was co-occupant of the said truck on the relevant date of the accident stated on oath before the Tribunal that Samandar Nath used to earn Rs. 50-100/- per day and as such his monthly income was Rs. 1,500/-. He, further stated that including Samandar Nath there were five person travelling in the said truck from Ahemdabad. Samandar Nath was sleeping in the truck when it turned turtled. He further stated that they were allowed to travel in the said truck after charging fare. PW-3 Kali also stated on oath that Samandar Nath was doing work of labourer at Ahemdabad. 11. As against the evidence produced by the claimants, the owner of the truck Gokul Singh appeared as DW-1 and stated that he is the owner of the truck noticed-above, which was driven by Pratap Singh, who subsequently expired, was carrying machinery from Ahemdabad to Bhilwara. While the truck was on slope near Ratanpur, there was some oil on the road and the driver could not control the truck and it ultimately slipped and turned turtled. He stated that the driver of the truck was prohibited to carry passengers in the truck. The truck driver informed that the deceased Samandar Nath was travelling with the machinery on behalf of the Vijay Goods Transport. 12. DW-2 Kishan Singh also stated that the said truck was driven by Pratap Singh and while it was on slope near Ratanpur, there was some. oil spread on the road and the driver applied brake but the truck turned turtled. He further stated that the truck was carrying the machinery belonging to Vijay Goods Transport, which was carried from Ahemdabad and the Transport Company allowed deceased Samandar Nath as a Hamal for safety of the machinery. oil spread on the road and the driver applied brake but the truck turned turtled. He further stated that the truck was carrying the machinery belonging to Vijay Goods Transport, which was carried from Ahemdabad and the Transport Company allowed deceased Samandar Nath as a Hamal for safety of the machinery. In the cross-examination, he stated that goods were carried from Rakhiyal and not from Ahemdabad, whereas in the claim petition and evidence pro duced by the claimants it was stated that deceased Samandar Nath was travelling from Ahemdabad. The Tribunal did not rely upon statements of DW-1 Gokul Singh and DW-2 Kishan Singh on the ground that in the pleading, it was stated that Samandar Nath was travelling from Ahemdabad and in the statement made before the Tribunal, it was stated that he was carried in the said truck from Rakhiyal along with goods. This being contradictory, the statements of DW-1 and DW-2 were unreliable. More so, neither such fact was pleaded by the claimants nor by the respondents in their written statement. The Insurance Company produced DW-3 Navin Jain, who stated in clear terms that the Insurance Company has undertaken to reimburse driver, cleaner and fours labourers engaged on the said truck. However, the Insurance Company has not charged any premium for passenger carried in the goods vehicle. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar and carefully gone through the pleadings, various other documents placed on the record and the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties. 14. The case as set up by the claimants is that Samandar Nath and other persons noticed above, were travelling in the said truck from Ahemdabad. They used to do the work of casual labourers. Admittedly, the goods were not loaded on the truck from Ahemdabad but were loaded from Rakhiyal. It is not the case of the claimants that for the purpose of loading and unloading the labourers were engaged on the said truck. In the written statement filed by the respondents no such plea was raised. The facts pleaded in the claim petition by the claimants in this regard were not denied in the written statements filed by the owner or driver of the truck. In the written statement filed by the respondents no such plea was raised. The facts pleaded in the claim petition by the claimants in this regard were not denied in the written statements filed by the owner or driver of the truck. Thus, there is no basis to come to the conclusion that deceased Samandar Nath was travelling as labourer in the said truck or was employed as representative of the goods, by the owner of the goods. Ever, the owner of the truck made contrary statement before the Tribunal that deceased was sitting as labourer in the truck as he was representative of the Vijay Goods Transport. No witness was produced from the Vijay Goods Transport Company to support the plea that the deceased was carried in the goods carriage as a representative of the owner of goods or as a labour engaged on the said truck. Thus, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased was travelling in goods carriage as fare paying passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. I find no error of illegality in the judgment passed by the Tribunal, exonerating the Insurance Company from liability. 15. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants claimed Rs. 1,68,000/- as compensation. As against this the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs. 1,000/- and as such annual dependency was determined at Rs. 12,000/-, which has multiplied by multiplier of 10 years' purchase factor. The multiplier selected by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side. If the proper-multiplier is used and the compensation is determined, than it would be more than the amount of Rs. 1,68,000/-, claimed. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the amount, which they have claimed in the claim petition. 16. No other point was argued. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by Gokul Singh (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 400/95) has no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the appeal filed by Smt. Pyari (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 549/94) succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,68,000/-. No order as to costs.Orders accordingly. *******