Judgment :- 1. All the appeals pertain to claim for compensation in respect of the accident occurred on 1.12.1998 at 1.30 a.m. in the night near Lahoti crushing machine on the Shahbad-Gulbarga road. A lorry bearing registration No.KA-20/2766 was transporting load of Shahbad stones from Wadi to Bombay. The lorry met with an accident resulting in death of 9 persons, out of them four are minors. Besides 13 inmates are injured. The injured and deceased were taken to Govt. Hospital, Gulbarga. One Devaraj, who is an appellant in MFA No.1046/2004, had lodged a complaint before the police to the effect that himself and other 28 persons boarded the lorry at Wadi to go to Gulbarga. The dependants of the deceased and the injured have filed petitions seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioners, but fastened the liability only on the owner. The claim against the insurer is rejected. The appeals are filed for seeking enhancement of compensation and the award against the insurer. 2. In the appeals relating to death cases the owner of the lorry is respondent No.2 and in the appeals relating to injury cases the owner is respondent No.1. The address of the owner of the lorry in the appeal is one that is furnished in the petition. The owner was served on the said address. He appeared and contested the cases. In these appeals, notices have been taken out to the owner of the lorry to the same address as shown in the petition. In some cases, the notice sent through “Registered Post Acknowledgement Due” [“RPAD” for short] are returned with an endorsement “Address is in-complete”. In some cases, the Postman had kept the post waiting for about six days and later on returned the Post with an endorsement “not found”. 3. Order VI Rule 14A mandates the party to furnish the registered address. The owner has not taken any objection to the address given in the petition before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the notices are served and has appeared before the Tribunal. The notices are returned with postal endorsement that “address is incomplete and not found” would only suggest that the owner is deliberately trying to avoid the issuance of notice. Hence, in the context, it is held that the notice to the owner of the vehicle is held sufficient in all appeals. 4. The notices are returned with postal endorsement that “address is incomplete and not found” would only suggest that the owner is deliberately trying to avoid the issuance of notice. Hence, in the context, it is held that the notice to the owner of the vehicle is held sufficient in all appeals. 4. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that the insurer has collected extra premium of Rs.150/-to non-fare paying passengers [for short ‘NFPP’]. The IMT 37A of the present Tariff Regulations verbatim corresponds to IMT 14 of the earlier Regulation and it fastens liability on the insurer to pay compensation to the persons covered under IMT 14. The extract of IMT 37A is as follows: “IMT 37A. Legal Liability to Non Fare Paying Passenger who are not employees of the Insured (Commercial Vehicles) In consideration of the paying of an additional premium of Rs… and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 11-1(c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against his legal liability other than liability under statute (except Fatal Accidents Act, 1855) in respect of death or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured and not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is a) charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. b) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or the other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from vehicle insured described in the SCHEDULE OF THIS POLICY. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy. 5. With reference to clause (B), it is argued that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the persons who are traveling along with goods and also to any other person connected with journey in one form or the other if he is traveling in the goods vehicle. The counsel in the first place, with reference to the material in the panchanama, strenuously argued that the recitals in the panchanama show the presence of food grains in the gunnysacks. The recitals would corroborate the version of the petitioners/claimants that the injured and the deceased were all traveling along with goods. The counsel in the first place, with reference to the material in the panchanama, strenuously argued that the recitals in the panchanama show the presence of food grains in the gunnysacks. The recitals would corroborate the version of the petitioners/claimants that the injured and the deceased were all traveling along with goods. In each case, in the pleadings it is stated that each of the inmate was traveling with a load of one quintal Jowar, ½ quintal rice and 25 kgs of pulse from Wadi to Mumbai in search of employment. The evidence in the said cases discloses that they were traveling in the lorry from Wadi to Mumbai along with the goods and they had paid fright charges. 6. In the alternative, it is argued that irrespective of the fact whether they were traveling with the goods or not, the insurer would be liable under Clause B of IMT 37, in view of the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3885 [BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. KALAVATHI AND OTHERS], wherein with reference to Clause B of IMT 14, the following observations were made in para 6 of the judgment. “6. On these rival contentions and on a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that under a policy of insurance issued in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) – there is no obligation to cover the risk of passengers in a goods vehicle. Before the substitution of the clause “injury to any person” in Section 147(1)(b)(i) with “injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle”, by Act 54 of 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994, it was not possible to claim that the risk of the charterer or his representative carried in the vehicle, was covered. This situation would explain the insurer seeking to cover the risk to the charterer or his representative carried in the vehicle, on payment of additional premium in terms of Condition No. IMT 14. Therefore, the first part of IMT 14 having been rendered otiose since the year 1994, is apparent. On an unbiased interpretation of the latter half of the above condition, it would clearly render the appellant liable under the policy. Therefore, the first part of IMT 14 having been rendered otiose since the year 1994, is apparent. On an unbiased interpretation of the latter half of the above condition, it would clearly render the appellant liable under the policy. There can be no doubt that the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle and was permitted to board the vehicle by the driver, who was in charge of the vehicle. His presence was not unauthorised. He was connected with the journey atleast upto the accident spot.” 7. The counsel for appellants argued that in so far as covering the risk of the owner of the goods or his representative, it is no more necessary to pay additional premium and risk would be covered statutorily u/s 147(1)(b)(i). The insurer has collected additional premium under the policy. Therefore, insurer is liable to pay compensation under IMT 14 Clause B when they are not carried for hire or reward. 8. The provisions of Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is extracted hereunder: “100. carriage of persons in goods vehicle – (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle: Provided that the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in uniform traveling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried,- .(i) in light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs. Not more than one; .(ii) in any other light transport goods vehicle not more than three; and (iii) in any goods vehicle not more than seven; Provided that the provisions of sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of the above proviso shall not be applicable to the vehicles plying on inter-State routes or the vehicles carrying goods from one city to another city.” “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (i), but subject to the provisions of sub-rules (4) and (5), a Regional Transport Authority may, by an order in writing permit that a larger number of persons may be carried in the vehicle, on condition that no goods at all are carried, free of charge in connection with the work for which the vehicle is used, and that such other conditions as may be specified by the Regional Transport Authority are observed, and where the vehicle is required to be covered by a permit, the conditions of the permit. .(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), but subject to the provisions of sub-rules (4) and (5).- .(a) for the purpose of celebrations in connection with the Republic Day or Independence Day or any other public congregation. The Regional Transport Officer; .(b) for the purpose of enabling a co-operative society or class of co-operative societies owning or hiring a goods vehicle to carry its members under its authority in such goods vehicle when used for the purpose of carrying goods of the society in the ordinary course of its business, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. .(c) where it considers expedient in public interest in respect of vehicles owned or hired by it, and in respect of other vehicles on such inescapable grounds of urgent nature to be specified in the order, the State Government may, by general or special order, permit goods vehicle to be used for the carriage of persons for the purposes aforesaid, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified in the order. .(4) No persons shall be carried in any goods vehicle.- .(a) unless an area of not less than 0.40 square metre of the floor of the vehicle is kept open for each person; and .(b) in such manner- .(i) that such person when carried on goods is otherwise in danger of falling from the vehicles; .(ii) that any part of his body, when he is in a sitting position is at a height exceeding three metres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests. .(5) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to motor vehicles registered under Section 60. (6) No person other than an attendant or attendants required by Rule 226 shall be carried on a trailer which is goods vehicle.” The permitted persons to travel in the goods vehicle are owner or hirer or bonafide employee of the owner of the vehicle carried free of charge or Police Officer in uniform. The total persons permitted under Rule 100, in a goods vehicle is not more than 7 persons. The proviso further states that the provision of sub-clause Ii and III shall not be applicable to vehicle plying in inter-state goods and goods carried from one city to another city. The Rule 100 does not permit carriage of any other persons as gratuitous passengers and passengers for hire or reward. 9. The recitals in the panchanama if closely read, it does not suggest that all the 22 inmates were traveling along with goods as stated. Three of the deceased inmates are aged between 12-15 years. The recitals in the FIR belies the pleadings and the evidence that the inmates were traveling along with goods from Wadi to Bombay. In the FIR lodged by one of the inmates who is a victim of the accident states that all the inmates were traveling from Wadi to Gulburga. 10. The lorry in question was fully loaded with Shahabad stones, which is almost equivalent to the carrying capacity of ten tones. If the evidence of the petitioner is considered, the total load of the goods and the inmates including the Shahabad stones would be around 18-20 tones and the said version becomes impossible to accept. The food grains carried constitute only a personal luggage and does not constitute goods within the definition of Section 2(13) of the MV Act. 11. If the evidence of the petitioner is considered, the total load of the goods and the inmates including the Shahabad stones would be around 18-20 tones and the said version becomes impossible to accept. The food grains carried constitute only a personal luggage and does not constitute goods within the definition of Section 2(13) of the MV Act. 11. Sri Metagudda, counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the permitted capacity of passengers in a goods vehicle is six, for which Rs.150/-is collected towards NFPP and in respect of seven employees, a separate premium of Rs.105/-is collected. The terms in IMT 14 applies to all commercial vehicles. The deceased and the injured inmates would come within the meaning of IMT 37B. Hence insurer is liable to pay the compensation. 12. The expression commercial vehicle in IMT 37 would include both passenger vehicle and goods vehicle. The decision of the Supreme Court in ASHA RANI’s case, AIR 2003 SC 607 lays down that the insurer does not incur any liability in respect of un-authorised passenger in a goods vehicle. The Rule 100 of KMV Rules does not permit carrying any persons in a goods vehicle other than the one permitted by rules. IMT 37A refers to owner of the goods or his representative traveling along with the goods in a goods vehicle. IMT 37B obviously refers to persons connected with passenger vehicle. The risk in respect of a cleaner, helper etc., of a passenger vehicle is not covered under the Act policy u/s 147, therefore on payment of additional premium, the risk of such employees are covered as a contractual liability. The risk of the owner of the goods or his representative in a goods vehicle was being covered as a contractual liability on payment of additional premium. However, after the Amendment Act 1954 w.e.f. 14.11.1994, the owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle are required to be covered under the Act policy without the need of payment of additional premium. The intendment and object of M.V. Act does not permit carriage of passengers in a goods vehicle, except the one permitted by the law as above stated. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Asha Rani’s case makes it explicit that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the unauthorised passengers traveling in a goods vehicle. The intendment and object of M.V. Act does not permit carriage of passengers in a goods vehicle, except the one permitted by the law as above stated. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Asha Rani’s case makes it explicit that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the unauthorised passengers traveling in a goods vehicle. In the context of the said proposition of law, it would be absurd to contend that under IMT 37 B the risk of passengers in goods vehicle would be covered on payment of additional premium when it is not permitted in law. In the context of categorization of commercial vehicles, IMT 37 A pertains to goods vehicle and IMT 37 B pertains to passengers’ vehicle. It may be that after amendment of Sec. 147 of MV Act w.e.f. 14.11.94, it is no longer necessary to pay additional premium to cover the risk of owner of goods or his representative. Therefore, IMT 37 A has almost become a otiose provision in the policy. 13. In the context of the above discussion, we are of the view that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation u/s IMT 37 B. That apart, the petitioners have not proved that they are authorised passengers traveling in a goods vehicle. In fact, it is impossible to appreciate that all 22 persons as owner of goods could travel in the lorry. It could be one or two person can charter a vehicle, but not 22 persons carrying their personal luggage can be considered as charterers traveling in the vehicle along with the goods. The FIR recitals clearly dispel the contention of the petitioners. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal in disallowing the claim against the insurer is sound and proper. 14. The claimants in MFA No.1036/2004, MFA No.1037/2004, MFA No.1039/2004, MFA No.1042/2004, MFA No.1044/2004, MFA No.1045/2004, MFA No.1046/2004 AND MFA No.1047/2004 have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. The inmates of the vehicle have sustained only simple injuries. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/-each, which appears to be just and proper and does not call for enhancement. 15. In respect of MFA No.1038/2004, the injured has sustained hairline crack fracture on head. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.10,000/-which appears to be inadequate. Hence, the appellant – claimant in MFA No.1038/2004 is granted a global compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 16. 15. In respect of MFA No.1038/2004, the injured has sustained hairline crack fracture on head. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.10,000/-which appears to be inadequate. Hence, the appellant – claimant in MFA No.1038/2004 is granted a global compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 16. In respect of MFA No.1040/2004, the victim has sustained three simple injuries and one toot is broken. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.10,000/-which appears to be inadequate. Hence, the appellant – claimant in MFA No.1040/2004 is granted a global compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 17. In respect of MFA No.1041/2004, the victim has sustained fracture of right lower 1/3rd arm and facture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th Metacarpals, fracture of right femur-pelvis. The Tribunal has assessed the total body disability at 20%. The victim is a coolie. His income is assessed at Rs.2,000/-per month. The loss of income proportionate to disability is Rs.400/-per month. The petitioner is granted Rs.50,000/-towards pain and agony, Rs.25,000/-towards Loss of amenities and future dis-comfort on account of disability, Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards Medical and Incidental expenses, in the absence of production of medical bills. The injured is aged about 13 years at the time of accident. The compensation is assessed and paid in advance before the attains employable age. Therefore, 2 Multiplier have to be deducted and 16 Multiplier to be applied. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to a compensation of [Rs.400 x 12 x 16] Rs.76,800/-as against Rs.75,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 18. In respect of MFA No.1043/2004, the victim is aged about 25 years and a coolie. He has sustained fracture of left femur and total body disability is assessed at 10%. The income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.2,000/-per month. The loss of income proportionate to disability is Rs.200/-per month. Hence, Rs.50,000/-is awarded towards pain and agony, Rs.20,000/-is awarded towards Loss of amenities and future discomfort, Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards Medical expenses. Loss of income on account of disability at 10% would be Rs.40,800/-[Rs.200 x 12 x 17]. In all, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,800/-as compensation as against Rs.82,300/-awarded by the Tribunal. 19. In respect of MFA No.1049/2004 the victim is aged about 25 years and a coolie. She has sustained fracture of left and right pubic bones. The total body disability is assessed at 10%. In all, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,800/-as compensation as against Rs.82,300/-awarded by the Tribunal. 19. In respect of MFA No.1049/2004 the victim is aged about 25 years and a coolie. She has sustained fracture of left and right pubic bones. The total body disability is assessed at 10%. The income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.2,000/-p.m. The loss of income proportionate to disability is Rs.200/-per month. Hence, Rs.50,000/-is awarded towards pain and agony, Rs.20,000/-is awarded towards Loss of amenities and future discomfort, Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards Medical expenses. Loss of income on account of disability at 10% would be Rs.40,800/-[Rs.200 x 12 x 17]. In all, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,800/-as compensation as against Rs.62,250/-awarded by the Tribunal. 20. In MFA No.8075/2003, the deceased is a lady aged about 40 years and was a coolie. Her husband and two minor children are the claimants. Her income is assessed at Rs.2,000/-PM. Out of that, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the balance of Rs.1,300/-would enure to the benefit of dependants., hence, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,34,000/-Rs.1,200 x 12 x 15]. The first claimant – husband is entitled to Rs.25,000/-towards Loss of consortium, the claimants together entitled for Rs.25,000/-towards Loss of expectancy, Rs.10,000/-towards funerals. In all, the claimants in MFA:8075/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,94,000/-as compensation as against Rs.1,69,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 21. In MFA No.8076/2003, one Chandu is the deceased, aged about 50 years and was a coolie. His wife and six minor children have filed this MFA seeking enhancement of compensation. His income is to be assessed at Rs.2,000/-PM. Out of that, if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses, the balance of Rs.1,500/-would enure to the benefit of dependants. Hence, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,34,000/-[Rs.1,500 x 12 x 13]. The first claimant – wife is entitled to Rs.25,000/-towards Loss of consortium, the claimants together entitled for Rs.25,000/-towards Loss of expectancy, Rs.10,000/-towards funerals. In all, the claimants in MFA:8076/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,94,000/-as compensation as against Rs.1,93,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In MFA No.8077/2003, the deceased Ramesh is a boy aged about 18 years and was a coolie. His parents have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. His income is to be assessed at Rs.2,000/-PM. In all, the claimants in MFA:8076/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,94,000/-as compensation as against Rs.1,93,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In MFA No.8077/2003, the deceased Ramesh is a boy aged about 18 years and was a coolie. His parents have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. His income is to be assessed at Rs.2,000/-PM. Out of that, if ½ is deducted towards personal expenses, the balance of Rs.1,000/-would enure to the benefit of dependants. Hence, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1,68,000/-[Rs.1,000 x 12 x 14]. The claimants are entitled for Rs.25,000/-towards Loss of expectancy, Rs.10,000/-towards funerals. In all, the claimants in MFA:8077/2003. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,03,000/-as compensation as against Rs.1,20,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 23. In MFA No.8078/2003, one Sangeetha is the deceased aged 12 years. Her parents have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. In MFA No.8079/2003, parents of the deceased Shanubai, aged 13 years are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. In MFA No.8080/2003 the father of the deceased Devaraj, aged 20 years is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. In MFA No.8086/2003 the mother of the deceased Tirupati, aged 8 years is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and in MFA No.8088/2003, the parents of the deceased Kavitha, aged 15 years are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Supreme court has held in New India Assurance Company limited Vs. Satendar reported in ACJ 2007, 160, that irrespective of the age of minor, compensation payable is Rs.1,80,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants in MFA No.8078/2003, 8079/2003, 8080/2003, 8086/2003 and 8088/2003 are entitled to a global compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 24. In MFA No.8081/2003 is in respect of one deceased Heerasingh. His wife and six minor children have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. His income is to be assessed at Rs.2,000/-per month. If 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses, the balance of Rs.1,500/-would enure to the benefit of dependants. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the Loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.3,06,000/-[Rs.1,500 x 12 x 17]. Further, a sum of Rs.25,000/-is awarded to the first claimant towards Loss of Consortium, the claimants together entitled for Rs.25,000/-towards loss of expectancy, Rs.10,000/-towards Funerals. In all, the claimants in MFA:8077/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,66,000/-as compensation as against Rs.2,53,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Further, a sum of Rs.25,000/-is awarded to the first claimant towards Loss of Consortium, the claimants together entitled for Rs.25,000/-towards loss of expectancy, Rs.10,000/-towards Funerals. In all, the claimants in MFA:8077/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,66,000/-as compensation as against Rs.2,53,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, MFA Nos.8078/2003, 8079/2003, 8080/2003, 8086/2003 and 8088/2003 are allowed. MFA Nos.8075/2003, 1038/2004, 1040/2004, 1041/2004, 1043/2004, 1049/2004, 8076/2003, 8077/2003, 8081/2003 are allowed in part. MFA Nos.1036/2004, 1037/2004, 1039/2004, 1042/2004, 1044/2004, 1045/2004, 1046/2004, 1047/2004 are dismissed. In all the MFAs on the enhanced compensation, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. The claim against the insurer is rejected. The enhanced compensation shall be payable by the owner of the Lorry. Sri Manvendra Reddy, counsel, is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.