JUDGMENT These four CMAs arise out of the common order dated 30-8-2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, in MVOP Nos.262 of 1998 and 466 of 1999. 2. On 30-10-1997, a mini lorry bearing No.KA-01-5083, owned by Sri Ramadas Motor Transport Limited (SRMT), and insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, dashed against another lorry bearing No.ABC-4570, near Nalagampalle village of Chittoor District. The lorry was owned by one Veerabhadraiah, and it was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Two persons, by name Arun Kumar and Gangadharam (for short "the claimants"), who were travelling in the mini lorry, sustained injures. They filed MVOP Nos.262 of 1998 and 466 of 1999, respectively, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, respectively, against the respondents impleaded in the O.Ps. Through the common order dated 30-8-2004, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- to Arun Kumar, and Rs.20,000/- to Gangadharam, as compensation. Arun Kumar filed CMA No.4522 of 2004, and Gangadharam filed CMA No.1494 of 2006, seeking enhancement of the compensation. M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, for short "the insurer", of the mini lorry, owned by SRMT, filed CMA Nos.1495 and 1496 of 2006, assailing the very fastening of the liability upon them. 3. The claimants pleaded that they were waiting at Katappagaripalle crossroad bus stop, at about 6 p.m., and they boarded in the mini lorry, to go to Bangarupalyam. They alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry, it dashed against another lorry bearing No.ABC-4170, coming in the opposite direction, at Nalagampalle cross road. They described the nature of injuries sustained by them and claimed the compensation, as referred to above. 4. The SRMT filed counter affidavit in both the Ops., and pleaded that the injuries sustained by the claimants were simple in nature, and that the claim made by them is excessive. It was also pleaded that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of other lorry. The actual contest of the matter was by the insurer. 5. The Insurer filed a separate counter affidavit, and denied the allegations that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. The actual contest of the matter was by the insurer. 5. The Insurer filed a separate counter affidavit, and denied the allegations that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. It disputed the nature of injuries, as well as the expenditure said to have been incurred by the claimants for treatment. During the course of arguments, a plea was raised by the insurer to the effect that the claimants were passengers in a goods vehicle, and as such, it cannot be liable to pay the compensation. 6. The Tribunal held that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. It relied upon the admission of guilt, by the driver of the said lorry, in Crime No.145 of 1997. As regards the plea of the insurer that it is not liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal took the view that the owner of the said vehicle paid extra amount of premium, to cover the liability towards non-fare paid passengers, and in that view of the matter, it cannot avoid its liability, to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 7. In the matter of determining the compensation to be awarded to the claimants, the Tribunal took into account, the nature of injuries, expenditure incurred for curing of the same, and other related matters, and awarded the amounts specified above. 8. Smt. I. Mammu Vani, learned counsel for the insurer, submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Ajit Kumar and others and the other judgments rendered subsequent thereto, an insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation for the injuries to, or death of a passenger, in a goods vehicle. She submits that what was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle, and that there was no justification for the Tribunal, in fastening the liability upon the insurer. She contends that the extra premium was no doubt for liability arising towards passenger, but those, who did not pay fare. She also opposes the claim for enhancement of compensation. 9. She submits that what was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle, and that there was no justification for the Tribunal, in fastening the liability upon the insurer. She contends that the extra premium was no doubt for liability arising towards passenger, but those, who did not pay fare. She also opposes the claim for enhancement of compensation. 9. Shi S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, apart from opposing the plea advanced on behalf of the insurer, contends that the very purpose of receiving extra premium from the owner of the vehicle was, to cover such contingencies. He submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal, is inadequate. 10. In these set of appeals, two questions arise for consideration, viz., (a) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is adequate? and (b) Whether the insurer can be held liable to pay the compensation? 11. A feeble effort was made by the insurer to assail the finding of the Tribunal, holding the driver of the mini lorry alone, as responsible for the accident. This Court is not inclined to entertain the same. The reason is that the police registered Crime No.145 of 1997, soon after the accident, against the driver of the mini lorry. He pleaded guilt in the trial Court, and was consequently convicted. Therefore, there is no scope for taking a different view. 12. The Tribunal discussed in detail, the nature of injuries sustained by the two claimants, the expenditure incurred for treatment, as well as the resultant pain, etc. The claimant in MVOP No.262 of 1998 sustained four injuries, viz; (1) an abrasion over the left frontal region; (2) a laceration over the right palm; (3) a contusion over the middle of the left upper arm; and (4) a contusion over the middle of left leg. The Hospital Authorities certified that the first two injuries were simple and other two were grievous in nature. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted towards pain and suffering, Rs.1 0,000/- for treatment, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport. This Court is of the view that in view of the multiplicity of the injuries, and having regard, to the fact that two of them were grievous in nature, the compensation to this claimant deserves to be enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. 13. This Court is of the view that in view of the multiplicity of the injuries, and having regard, to the fact that two of them were grievous in nature, the compensation to this claimant deserves to be enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. 13. The claimant in O.P.No.466 of 1999 was also found to have received four injuries. One of them is tenderness over the right hip joint, and it is said to be the result of the fracture of the right pubic bone. Rest of them are a contusion, an abrasion and a laceration. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.5,000/- towards treatment and medicines. In view of the fact that a fracture is suffered on the pubic bone, the compensation deserves to be enhanced, at least by Rs.15,000/-, since its effect would be continuously felt. 14. Now comes to the question, as to whether the insurer can be held liable to pay the compensation. It is true that in a series of judgments, the Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot be held liable, to indemnify the liability of the insured, arising out of injuries to, or death of a passenger, in a goods vehicle. This principle has to be understood in the context of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short "the Act". It reads as under: "Requirements of policies and limits of liability:- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (The rest of the sections omitted since it is not felt necessary for this case)" 15. It makes an exception as regards the passengers, who accompanied their goods. It makes an exception as regards the passengers, who accompanied their goods. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court applies to the cases, where the passengers, who have sustained injuries or suffered death, are those who did not accompany the goods and the vehicle is covered with an Act Policy, without any extra premium. This is evident from the fact that Section 147 itself provides for coverage of liability. 16. The underlined portion of the Section clearly discloses that the liability towards the owner of the goods, or his authorized representative, travelling in a goods vehicle, is covered under the Act Policy itself. This provision makes it amply clear that there does not exist a total prohibition as to coverage of liability towards persons travelling in goods vehicles. The insurer is absolved of its liability only where the injuries or death occurred to an individual, who was travelling in a goods vehicle, not in the capacity of the owner of the goods, and that the insurance policy was to the extent of basic minimum. 17. Further, the purport of Section 147 is to provide for the minimum extent of coverage of insurance, but not to exclude any coverage over and above, what is provided therein, if, the parties to the contract of insurance, intend to do so. The insurer and insured can certainly contract for a wider coverage, than the one, provided for under Section 147, on payment of extra premium. In the instant case, it has come on record that the owner of the vehicle paid extra premium to cover the liability towards "non-fare paying passengers". The certified copy of the policy was filed before the Tribunal, as EX.B-1. It discloses that a sum of RS.50/- was paid as premium towards coverage for such category of passengers. 18. A contention is advanced to the effect that the coverage would be only in relation to such passengers, who did not pay fare, and since the claimants have paid the fare, the liability towards them is not covered. It is I difficult to accept such a proposition. The reason is that by receiving extra premium, the insurer had undertaken to cover the liability of the owner of the vehicle towards passengers in the goods vehicle, who are not owners of the goods. It is I difficult to accept such a proposition. The reason is that by receiving extra premium, the insurer had undertaken to cover the liability of the owner of the vehicle towards passengers in the goods vehicle, who are not owners of the goods. In terms of coverage and having regard to the object, underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, it does not make much of a difference, as to whether the passenger paid, or did not pay the fare. In fact, the emphasis, if at all, must be other way, that is, if the coverage is only towards passengers, who paid the fare, there may be some difficulty in bringing the non-fare paying passengers under it. In the converse case, the coverage to non-fare paying passengers is wider one, which can naturally would take in its fold, the coverage to fare paying passengers. 19. The pleading of the insurer was not so specific, as to support the argument, advanced at a later point of time. They also do not appear to have thrown much light upon it. The factual aspect would have an important bearing on the operation of various clauses contained in the policy. Unless necessary factual foundation was laid, the contention cannot be proved satisfactorily. Such foundation is lacking. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea advanced on behalf of the insurer. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the CMA No.4522 of 2004 and CMA No.1494 of 2006 are allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.45,000/- and RS.35,000/-, respectively. The other two CMA Nos.1495 and 1496 of 2006, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.