JUDGMENT GOHIL, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeals No. 432 and 439 of 1997. Both the appeals have been filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation Miscellaneous Appeal No. 432/97 has been filed by injured Badam against the award of Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/ - towards the injuries suffered by him. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 439/97 has been filed by claimants of deceased Babusingh against the award of Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/- for the death of deceased Babusingh. 2. In both the appeals, insurance company has also filed cross-objections. The cross-objections are within time, therefore, they are taken on record. In both the appeals, nature of cross-objections is that the injured as well as deceased, both were travelling in a truck with a dead body, therefore, the contention of the insurance company is that since they were travelling in a goods vehicle as a passenger, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation and the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the insurance company. 3. Facts of the case are that on 13.1.1992 Babusingh and other persons were carrying a dead body of Savitri, daughter of Dubariya Kumar from Mohna to village Jamhar and for that purpose they had taken a truck on hire bearing registration No. MPH 2435. Deceased Babusingh and other persons were sitting in the truck along with the dead body. At about 11 O'clock in the morning when the said truck reached near Dak Bungalow of Nayagaon, the truck turned turtle being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the truck. Due to accident, Babusingh came under the truck. Babusingh, Badam and others received injuries. Babusingh was reterred to J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior. He remained hospitalised and on 15.1.1992 he died in the hospital. FIR of the incident was also lodged. Matter was investigated and charge-sheet was also filed. 4. Initially widow and sons of deceased Babusingh filed claim petition, but during the pendency of the claim petition widow of deceased Smt. Anandibai died, therefore, her name was deleted. Badam also filed claim petition for claiming compensation for the injuries received in the accident. Badam received fracture in his left leg and bone has come out. 4. Initially widow and sons of deceased Babusingh filed claim petition, but during the pendency of the claim petition widow of deceased Smt. Anandibai died, therefore, her name was deleted. Badam also filed claim petition for claiming compensation for the injuries received in the accident. Badam received fracture in his left leg and bone has come out. Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the parties, awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- to injured Badam and Rs.48,000/ - to the claimants for the death of deceased Babusingh. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Shri N.D. Singhal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation for the death of deceased Babusingh and also to injured Badam. He has submitted that Badam being a poor person was not treated in the hospital, therefore, he could also not produce any medical evidence. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that injured Badam has become totally disabled due to the injuries received in the accident. Therefore, in both the cases he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. In reply, Shri B.N. Malhotra, learned counsel for the insurance company, submitted that the deceased and injured, both were travelling in a goods vehicle. He further submitted that though the policy has been issued for the truck No. MPH 2435, but in the policy name of the insured has been mentioned as Shri Lalaram Agrawal and Lalaram Agrawal was not added as a party in the petition. One Mathura Prasad has been shown as the owner of the vehicle but in the covernote (Ex. D-1) name of Mathura Prasad has not been mentioned. 8. AW l Soneram has stated that they were travelling in a goods vehicle alongwith the dead body of girl Savitri. 9. AW l Badam has also stated that they were travelling in a truck along with the dead body. Therefore, admittedly, the deceased and Badam were travelling in a truck along with the dead body. 10. Insurance Company has examined NAW 1 Kailash Narayan Sharma, Administrative Officer of the insurance company. He has stated that Ex. D-l is the policy of the said truck but as per the policy only risk of Act liability was covered and there was no permission for carrying passenger in the said vehicle and company is not responsible for the liability of the passengers. 11. He has stated that Ex. D-l is the policy of the said truck but as per the policy only risk of Act liability was covered and there was no permission for carrying passenger in the said vehicle and company is not responsible for the liability of the passengers. 11. Admittedly the incident took place prior to 14.11.1994, i.e. prior to amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others [2003 (1) BLJ 1 = 2003 ACJ 1], it has been clearly held that the insurance company shall not be liable for the death of or injury sustained by the owner of goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with accident prior to amendment of 1994. 12. As per the definition of 'goods' defined under sub-section (13) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the' Act of 1988'), 'goods' includes live stock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. Thus, in view of the decision in the case of Asha Rani (supra), it is clear that the dead body does not fall within the definition of goods as defined under subsection (13) of section 2 of the Act of 1988 and prior to the amendment of 1994. Even if it is held that the passengers were carrying goods in a goods vehicle taken on hire, the insurance company shall not be liable to cover the risk of the passengers travelling in a goods vehicle in any manner. 13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as considering the evidence and the conditions of the policy on record, in the instant case it is held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death and injury of the passengers but certainly the owner and driver of the vehicle are liable for the payment of compensation to the claimants. 14. As regards Miscellaneous Appeal No. 432/97, claimant Badam received injury in his left leg and bone has come out from the leg. 14. As regards Miscellaneous Appeal No. 432/97, claimant Badam received injury in his left leg and bone has come out from the leg. Badam has deposed that his parents had taken him to the hospital but since they were not having money, they brought him back in the house and he was treated by Dr. Madin. He is unable to bend his leg and his leg has shortened by 3 inches. He is not in a position to work from that leg. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he remained hospitalised for one day. He has produced MLC report (Ex.P-l), X-ray report (Ex. P-2) and disability certificate (Ex. P-3) but he has not examined the doctor in support of his claim. 15. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it is not necessary to prove the certificate of the doctor. Tribunal has found that though the disability certificate has been produced but the other treatment papers have not been produced. Considering the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.12,000/-. 16. It is true that for proving permanent disability, examination of the doctor before the Court is necessary. In the absence of any medical evidence it cannot be held that the injured has suffered permanent disability. Unless cogent evidence is available on record, the Court cannot arrive at any conclusion about any deformity or permanent disability of the injured. Mere statement of the claimant is not sufficient. It is the doctor who can perform necessary scientific test and by applying proper scientific method for assessment of deformity and disability can issue certificate and that certificate has got to be proved before the Court by leading proper medical evidence, but in this case the claimant has not made any efforts to produce the medical evidence or any other evidence on record. However, considering Ex. P-l, which is the certified copy of the MLC report, he received fracture in the left leg at the upper end and there is deformity. It was a grievous hurt. As per certified copy of the X-ray report, Ex. P-2, he received fracture in upper left leg above knee and fracture at the upper end of tibia bone on left side. There is also disability certificate (Ex. P-3) on record. As per this certificate, his knee joint (left) is immovable and fractured. It was a grievous hurt. As per certified copy of the X-ray report, Ex. P-2, he received fracture in upper left leg above knee and fracture at the upper end of tibia bone on left side. There is also disability certificate (Ex. P-3) on record. As per this certificate, his knee joint (left) is immovable and fractured. Therefore, it is clear that he received fracture in tibia bone, which may be fatal to him. He was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. 17. Considering the totality of the evidence, it can be held that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.12,000/- towards the treatment and suffering. In such cases at least minimum sum of Rs.25,000/- should be awarded even in the absence of any evidence of disability on record. Therefore, the amount of Rs.12,000/- is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and claimant 'shall also be entitled for interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of appeal. 18. As regards Miscellaneous Appeal No. 439/97 filed by claimants of deceased Babusingh, for the death of deceased the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/-. Deceased Babusingh was aged about 60 years. He was engaged in manufacturing of earthen pots and was earning Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,500/per month. 19. AW1 Soneram has deposed that his father was earning Rs.50/- per day. Considering this evidence, Tribunal has considered that he was earning Rs.1,200/per month and after deducting one-third on his personal expenses, considered the dependency at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,600/- per year and applied multiplier of 5. In view of the evidence on record, Tribunal has twice deducted the amount towards the personal expenses. If the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per year, then the amount of dependency will come to Rs.12,000/- per year. The age of deceased was around 60 years at tie time of accident. In the post-mortem report also his age has been shown as 60 years, therefore, the multiplier of 8 instead of 5 will be applicable. On applying multiplier of 8, the total compensation shall be Rs. 96,000/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.96,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal. 20. On applying multiplier of 8, the total compensation shall be Rs. 96,000/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.96,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal. 20. In the result, Miscellaneous Appeals No. 432/97 and 439/97 are partly allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced as indicated above. Cross-objections filed by the insurance company in both the appeals are also allowed. Claimants shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation with interest jointly or severally from the respondents owner and driver of the vehicle. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.