RAFIQ, J.—Service of respondent no.2 is already dispensed with vide order dated 21.11.2011. Matter is heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by appellant – National Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by award dated 11.03.1994 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, in MAC Case No.35/1992 (134/1990), whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,200/- to claimant. 3. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that accident took place prior to amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that was introduced in 1994, wherein risk of any person was not covered. Injured claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle, therefore, his risk was not covered. His further contention is that disability of 70% has been excessively accepted by Tribunal inasmuch as there was no satisfactory evidence to prove amputation of right foot below knee. No doctor was produced in evidence. 4. On contrary, learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that accident took place in the year 1989 and learned Tribunal relied on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Santra Bai and Others vs. Prahlad and Others – AIR 1986 Rajasthan 101 = 1985 RLW 354, wherein it was held that risk of owner of goods, if he is accompanying the goods in a goods vehicle, is covered and insurer will be liable to pay. It was denied that disability of 70% has not been proved. Learned counsel in this connection referred to evidence on issue no.3 and argued that injury report (Exhibit-4) and X-ray report (Exhibit-5) clearly proved that there were fractures of patella bones of both knees and right foot was found missing. Photograph of injured was also exhibited as Exhibit-1, showing that his right foot was found amputated. Learned counsel submitted that award is wholly inadequate and therefore claimant has separately filed appeal for enhancement. 5. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that learned Tribunal has relied on judgment of this court in Smt. Santra Bai, supra, in holding that risk of owner of the goods when travelling with his own goods in goods vehicle is covered and insurer will be liable to pay. Contention that disability of 70% was not proved, also cannot be accepted in view of evidence discussed in detail in Para 10 of the award while rendering finding on issue no.3. 6. Contention that disability of 70% was not proved, also cannot be accepted in view of evidence discussed in detail in Para 10 of the award while rendering finding on issue no.3. 6. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and same is dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.