Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 387, 652, 692, 739, 740 and 741 of 2003. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that on 15. 4. 1998, the offending truck bearing registration no. MP 04-K 2938 met with an accident. Undisputedly, the offending truck was insured as goods vehicle with respondent no. 8, driven by respondent No. 7 and owned by the appellant on the relevant date. On account of the accident three persons, namely, Champalal, Raisingh and prabhulal died on the spot and a number of persons were injured. On account of accident, number of claim cases were filed. Two Claim Case Nos. 90 and 92 of 1998 were dismissed on account of no evidence. Case against the respondent No. 7 who was the driver, proceeded ex pane. The claim cases were contested by the appellant and the respondent No. 8 who are owner and insurance company respectively. In all the claim cases insurance company has been exonerated holding that respondent No. 8 is not liable for payment of compensation as the offending vehicle was insured for carrying the goods and respondent No. 7 and appellant has been held liable being the driver and owner. The details of claim cases in which appeals have been filed along with its corresponding appeal numbers and the amount awarded by Claims Tribunal are as under: ( 3. ) IN Claim Case No. 113 of 1998 which was filed on account of death of Champalal, a sum of Rs. 2,29,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, against which M. A. No. 387 of 2003 has been filed by the claimants who are represented by Mr. S. B. Shrungarpure and M. A. No. 692 of 2003 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, in Claim Case No. 114 of 1998 wherein a sum of Rs. 40,000 has been awarded to the claimant Bhaironsingh, an appeal has been filed by the claimant which has been numbered as m. A. No. 652 of 2003 and appeal filed by the owner has been numbered as m. A. No. 741 of 2003. Claimant Bhaironsingh is represented by Mr. M. R. Sheikh. ( 4. ) SO far as the owner-appellant is concerned, he has also filed appeals against the awards passed in Claim Case Nos. Claimant Bhaironsingh is represented by Mr. M. R. Sheikh. ( 4. ) SO far as the owner-appellant is concerned, he has also filed appeals against the awards passed in Claim Case Nos. 86, 87 and 88 of 1998 of which respective appeal numbers are M. A. Nos. 739, 740 and 742 of 2003 and the amount of award in all the three cases are Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 1,57,000 and Rs. 1,66,600 respectively. ( 5. ) IN all the appeals which have been filed by owner-appellant herein, learned counsel Mr. Manish Jain submits that the respondent No. 8, insurance company has wrongly been exonerated. It is submitted that in Case No. 113 of 1998, the deceased champalal was a pedestrian and was not travelling in the offending vehicle. It is alleged that deceased Champalal was going with his nephew and was dashed by the offending vehicle. It is submitted that in evidence, the son of Champalal, Bhawarlal, aw 1, has appeared who has stated that he was told by his brother that deceased champalal was going on his foot. It is submitted that in the circumstances Champalal was not travelling in the offending vehicle, the respondent No. 8 has wrongly been exonerated. ( 6. ) MR. Manish Jain, learned counsel for appellant-owner of the offending vehicle further submits that the passengers were travelling in the offending vehicle along with their respective goods, therefore, in view of the amended proviso of section 147 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, respondent no. 8, the insurance company is liable for compensation and the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated. ( 7. ) IT is submitted that except M. A. Nos. 692 and 387 of 2003 which are arising out of Claim Case No. 113 of 1998, the claimants have alleged that the claimants were travelling in the vehicle along with goods. In view of this, the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Indian r. C. C. Cement Pipe Industries v. Kalawati, 2001 (II) MPWN 191, wherein in a case where the deceased was travelling along with his goods, the insurance company has been held liable for compensation by a Division Bench of this court. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Indian r. C. C. Cement Pipe Industries v. Kalawati, 2001 (II) MPWN 191, wherein in a case where the deceased was travelling along with his goods, the insurance company has been held liable for compensation by a Division Bench of this court. Learned counsel submits that in this case deceased was travelling with two bags of fertilizer and the Division Bench of this court has observed that since he was travelling in the vehicle along with the goods, therefore, insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. ( 9. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision of this court in the case of Kandhi v. Govind Singh Dhruve, 2006 ACJ 1747 (MP), wherein 20-24 persons were travelling along with their goods, Division Bench of this court has held that since deceased persons were travelling with their goods in the capacity of owner of the goods at the time of accident, therefore, insurer cannot escape from liability and his liability is statutorily covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation. ( 10. ) MR. Manish Jain further submits that claim case is not a plaint and strict rules of pleadings are not applicable. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision of Division Bench of Bombay high Court in the case of Maharashtra state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramchandra ganpatrao Chincholkar, 1993 ACJ 165 (Bombay), wherein it is held that claim petition is not a plaint governed by Civil procedure Code. ( 11. ) MR. M. R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant appearing in M. A. No. 652 of 2003 submits that the Claim Case no. 114 of 1998 was filed by the claimant bhaironsingh who was travelling in the offending vehicle along with seeds. It is submitted that specific pleading was made in the claim petition and evidence was also adduced. It is submitted that on account of accident, the appellant is suffering from paralysis. Right portion of the body is completely paralysed. Exh. P9 is the certificate which has been issued by the Medical board wherein it is found that disability is to the extent that he is not able to speak; therefore, he could not appear in witness-box before the learned Tribunal. Right portion of the body is completely paralysed. Exh. P9 is the certificate which has been issued by the Medical board wherein it is found that disability is to the extent that he is not able to speak; therefore, he could not appear in witness-box before the learned Tribunal. However, he was produced before learned Tribunal by two persons and the statement of his wife was recorded as he was unable to speak. It is submitted that appellant has submitted the medical bills of Rs. 35,903 which is Exh. P10 and which are 166 in number. Therefore, the awarded amount of rs. 40,000 is on the lower side. It is also submitted that no reason has been given by learned Tribunal for awarding Rs. 40,000. Since the appellant is a disabled person, therefore, he is entitled for compensation as per the Second Schedule to the Motor vehicles Act. ( 12. ) MR. H. S. Rajpal who is appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in M. A. No. 742 of 2003 submits that the amount of rs. 1,66,600 which has been awarded is on the lower side. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have filed the cross-objections wherein adequacy of the amount of compensation has been challenged. The learned counsel submits that income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 1,200 per month and after deducting one-third of the amount for personal expenses, the loss of dependency has been assessed Rs. 800 per month and after applying the multiplier of 16, Rs. 1,66,600 has been awarded which is on the lower side. ( 13. ) MR. Rajpal, who is also appearing in m. A. No. 740 of 2003 for the respondentclaimant submits that for the purpose of loss of dependency, the multiplier of 15 has been applied which is wrong because the age of deceased was 30 years, therefore, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. ( 14. ) IN M. A. No. 387 of 2003, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of death of the deceased, a sum of rs. 2,29,000 has been awarded, break-up of which is as under: ( 15. ) LEARNED counsel for appellants submits that there are 7 appellants and only a sum of Rs. 2,000 has been awarded for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,29,000 has been awarded, break-up of which is as under: ( 15. ) LEARNED counsel for appellants submits that there are 7 appellants and only a sum of Rs. 2,000 has been awarded for loss of love and affection and Rs. 3,000 has been awarded for loss of consortium, which is on the lower side. ( 16. ) MR. H. S. Rajpal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 submits that the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated as burden to prove that passengers who were travelling along with their goods were gratuitous passengers was on the insurance company and no evidence has been adduced by the insurance company. It is further submitted that since the claimants are third party, therefore, insurance company is liable to make payment of amount of compensation and the same can be recovered by the insurance company from the owner and driver of the vehicle. ( 17. ) IN this regard, reliance was placed on a decision in Jugal Kishore v. Ramlesh devi, 2004 ACJ 297 (MP), wherein after placing reliance on a decision of the Apex court in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC), this court has held that insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay the compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third party. ( 18. ) MR. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for insurance company submits that insurance company has rightly been exonerated by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the claimants who have sustained injuries and the persons who have died in the accident were not travelling in the vehicle along with goods. It is submitted that the offending vehicle was seized by the police authorities and the best evidence could have been the seizure memo to prove that the goods which the claimants were possessing at the relevant time were seized by the police. The claimants failed to produce that piece of evidence which was in their possession and/or power. It is submitted that the offending vehicle was seized by the police authorities and the best evidence could have been the seizure memo to prove that the goods which the claimants were possessing at the relevant time were seized by the police. The claimants failed to produce that piece of evidence which was in their possession and/or power. It is submitted that in view of this, since admittedly the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Further reliance was placed on the definition of goods and goods carriage as defined under sections 2 (13) and 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles act, which reads as under: " (13) goods includes livestock, 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; (14) 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;" Further reliance was placed on section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein amendment has been made in section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act whereby the words including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle has been inserted. Reliance was also placed on rule 97 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which reads as under: "rule 97 (1): No person shall be carried in a goods carriage other than a bona fide employee or the owner or the hirer and except in accordance with this rule. " ( 19. ) THE learned counsel submits that intention of the legislature is clear that risk of the hirer is covered and not the passengers who were gratuitous. It is submitted that the owner should be the hirer of the vehicle. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein Honble S. B. Sinha, J. , has observed that section 2 (35) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas section 2 (25) of 1939 Act did, as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein Honble S. B. Sinha, J. , has observed that section 2 (35) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas section 2 (25) of 1939 Act did, as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of the goods vehicle in 1939 Act and goods carriage in 1988 Act is significant. By reason of the change in the definitions of the terminology, the legislature intended that a goods vehicle could not carry any passenger, as the words in addition to passengers occurring in the definition of goods vehicle in 1939 Act were omitted. Furthermore, it categorically states that goods carriage would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods. ( 20. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision in Deddula Padmavathi v. Maddala srinivasa Rao, 2005 ACJ 768 (AP), wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that one or two bags of vegetables being carried by a passenger who boarded the lorry in the midway would not become goods within the meaning of section 2 (13) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because luggage being carried by passengers is not covered by the said definition. The volume and the weight of the bags being carried would have relevance to find out if they are luggage or goods within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the Act. Words employed in section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act reads including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle show that intention of Parliament was to cover the risk of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative, who actually engaged the goods vehicle to transport his goods from one destination to another destination and are not intended to cover the persons who board the goods vehicle carrying goods of some others in the midway with some luggage being carried with them. ( 21. ) A Division Bench of this court in bhani Bai v. Sajju, M. A. No. 380 of 2003; decided on 31. 8. ( 21. ) A Division Bench of this court in bhani Bai v. Sajju, M. A. No. 380 of 2003; decided on 31. 8. 2005, in a case where passengers boarded along with luggage and goods in a goods vehicle, held that vehicle was not hired for carrying his own goods and it is for the safety of his goods, he was travelling in the truck along with the goods. In the absence of any evidence being led by claimants to prove these facts we have no hesitation in confirming the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was in fact a gratis and was accordingly travelling as gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle thereby, disentitling claimants the awarded sum from the insurance company. ( 22. ) SO far as, Claim Case No. 113 of 1998 is concerned against which claimant has filed this appeal a sum of Rs. 2,29,000 has been awarded, break-up of which is as under: ( 23. ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid breakup it is evident that only Rs. 3,000 has been awarded towards consortium while the appellants are seven in number and no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. On account of loss to estate also the amount awarded is on lower side. Therefore, the appellants are further entitled for a sum of Rs. 35,000. ( 24. ) IN Claim Case No. 114 of 1998 against which M. A. No. 652 of 2003 has been filed by the claimant, amount awarded by learned tribunal appears to be on lower side. Medical bills are of Rs. 35,903 while Tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000. From perusal of record it is evident that appellant was produced before the court with the support of two persons and was not in a position to sit as he was completely paralytic. At the time of accident the age of the appellant in M. A. No. 387 of 2003 was 40 years. Looking to the injuries it is a case of 100 per cent disability, therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation as per Second Schedule prescribed under motor Vehicles Act. Looking to the age of the appellant and after taking into consideration the notional income at the rate of rs. 15,000 per year and after applying the multiplier of 15, a sum of Rs. Looking to the age of the appellant and after taking into consideration the notional income at the rate of rs. 15,000 per year and after applying the multiplier of 15, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 is just and proper which the appellant is entitled in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. ( 25. ) THERE are cross-objections in M. A. No. 742 of 2003 wherein amount awarded is Rs. 1,66,600 after assessing the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1,200 and after deducting the personal expenses, the monthly dependency is assessed at the rate of Rs. 800. The break-up of the amount awarded is as under: Since notional income is to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per year, therefore, the amount awarded is on lower side. On account of consortium and loss to estate also the amount awarded is on lower side. The appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 26. ) SO far as M. A. No. 740 of 2003 is concerned the break-up of amount awarded by learned Tribunal is as under: In this case also, respondent and the claimant shall be entitled for enhancement of rs. 63,000 because no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and the amount awarded towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and loss of dependency is on lower side. ( 27. ) COMING to the question of liability of respondent No. 8 is concerned, the law is well settled after the amendment under section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 28. ) SO far as the liability of insurance company is concerned, in case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 acj 1909 (SC), in a case where deceased who purchased vegetables and was transporting them to the market for sale, died while he was travelling in a tractor-trailer along with his goods when he fell down due to jerk, the Honble Apex Court held that carrying of vegetables in a tractor and transporting them to the market for sale cannot be said that the tractor was used for agricultural purposes. It was observed that use of tractor was for agricultural purposes would not be construed to mean that the tractor-trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. It was observed that use of tractor was for agricultural purposes would not be construed to mean that the tractor-trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. It was further held that vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes. ( 29. ) IN the case of National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 acj 721 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has held that there is no statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passengers. It was further held that insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation of gratuitous passengers travelling in goods vehicles. ( 30. ) IN the present case the offending vehicle was undisputedly a goods vehicle. As per rule 97 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles rules, 1994, no person can be carried in a goods carriage other than a bona fide employee or the owner or the hirer except in accordance with rules. The word goods has been defined under section 2 (13) of motor Vehicles Act which does not include luggage or personal effects. The volume and the weight of the bags were relevant to determine whether the articles which were being transported were luggage or goods. It is also evident from the record that the vehicle was not engaged for transportation of goods from one destination to another destination. In view of this except in the cases of M. A. Nos. 692 and 387 of 2003 learned Tribunal has committed no error in exonerating the insurance company. ( 31. ) SO far as M. A. Nos. 692 and 387 of 2003 which are arising out of Claim Case no. 113 of 1998 are concerned, the case of the appellants was that the deceased champalal was a pedestrian and was not travelling in the offending vehicle. ( 32. ) FROM perusal of award it is evident that learned Tribunal has nowhere dealt with whether the deceased Champalal was travelling in the offending vehicle or was a pedestrian. In the circumstances, so far as M. A. Nos. ( 32. ) FROM perusal of award it is evident that learned Tribunal has nowhere dealt with whether the deceased Champalal was travelling in the offending vehicle or was a pedestrian. In the circumstances, so far as M. A. Nos. 692 and 387 of 2003 are concerned, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned award, so far as it relates to claim Case No. 113 of 1998 is concerned relating to liability of the insurance company is set aside with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the liability of respondent No. 8 afresh after giving an opportunity to adduce further evidence to the parties, if any. So far as other appeals are concerned, the same stand disposed of with the aforesaid modification. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 30. 6. 2006. Record be sent back to the learned Tribunal immediately. Orders accordingly.