JUDGMENT All these appeals arise out of the same accident. All the petitioners are the injured and inmates of a goods tempo. Petitioners are potters who hired goods tempo for transporting pottery. After sale, they were returning in the goods tempo with the jowar bags. 2. Petitioner in M.V.C. No. 893 of 2001 sustained fracture of right radius. She is a potter, her income to be assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month. Petitioner could be awarded Rs. ;10,000/- for pain and agony, Rs. 10,000/- for medical and incidental expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs. 18,000/- for loss> of future income on account of disability and Rs. 6,000/- for loss of income during laid up period. In all petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 74,000/- as against Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced compensation, the interest payable shall be 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. M.F.A. No. 3510 of 2003 is al10wed as indicated above. 3. The compensation awarded in M.V.C. Nos. 894 and 896 of 2001 is just and proper and does not call for enhancement. 4. The Tribunal dismissed the c1aim against the insurer on the ground that the petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle. The accident took place on 26-4-1997 by which date the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be amended mandating the insurer to cover the risk of owner of goods travelling in the goods vehicle. All the petitioners were travelling along with goods. The vehic1e is a Light Goods Vehicle and permitted capacity is only three persons. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to three of the highest c1aims. In that view, the insurer shall pay compensation to petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 893, 894 and 896 of 200l. 5. In the vehicle in question about six persons were travel1ing with goods in excess of the permitted seating capacity of three. All the petitioners were aware that they were travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted seating capacity. The liability of the insurer is to satisfy only three of the highest claims. But, the persons who have received three of the highest claims win have the benefit of receiving compensation from the insurer. All the petitioners were aware that they were travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted seating capacity. The liability of the insurer is to satisfy only three of the highest claims. But, the persons who have received three of the highest claims win have the benefit of receiving compensation from the insurer. The persons who have been awarded lesser compensation other than three highest claims have to proceed against the owner for recovery of the compensation which is rather unpredictable proposition. Therefore, the equity demands that persons who have received highest compensation shall have to donate an equitable percentage of compensation to other claimants who have no right to recovery compensation from the insurer, so that an the petitioners will have a certainty of receiving a substantial portion of the compensation from the insurer. The balance have to be recovered by all the petitioners from the owner. In the instant case, the petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 893, 894 and 896 of 2001 shall donate 20% of their compensation with proportionate interest. The aggregate of 20% of the compensation in at the three cases works out to Rs. 19,200/-. The same shall be payable to petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 897, 898 and 899 of 200l. Petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 893, 891 and 896 of 2001 shall recover the donated portion of the compensation from the owner. 6. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of with the above observations.