JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. The following important question arises in this set of appeals :- Whether vehicles like Mahindra Pick-up, Bolero Camper, Mahindra Utility and other similar vehicles wherein the sitting capacity is 1+4 or more and they have more than one bench in the cabin normally having two seats in the front bench and three seats in the second bench and also have an open flat bed at the back for carriage of the goods are to be considered as goods carriage vehicles or passenger vehicles or combination of both? 2. The ancillary question which arises is as to what would be the liability of the Insurance Companies in such cases. 3. Before embarking on the exercise of deciding this question, it would be appropriate to refer to the definition of goods carriage in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as the Act), which reads as follows:- "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." 4. A bare reading of Section 2(14) shows that this definition is very wide and all encompassing. In case the vehicle is constructed or adapted solely for the carriage of goods then the same has to be considered a goods vehicle whether it is being used at the relevant time for carriage of goods or not. Therefore, an empty vehicle, which is meant solely for carriage of goods will have to be treated to be a goods vehicle. To give an example, a truck or long body trailer which are constructed and adapted mainly for the carriage of goods would at all times be considered to be goods vehicle. 5. However, the second part of the definition raises certain other issues. According to the second part of the definition when any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted but used for the carriage of goods it is also a goods vehicle. Interestingly, in this definition there is no reference to transport or non transport vehicle and the reference is only to a motor vehicle. According to the second part of the definition when any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted but used for the carriage of goods it is also a goods vehicle. Interestingly, in this definition there is no reference to transport or non transport vehicle and the reference is only to a motor vehicle. It appears that when a motor vehicle is used mainly for the carriage of goods then regardless of the fact that it is a transport vehicle or not, regardless of the fact that it is not adapted or constructed for carriage of goods, such vehicle would be termed to be a goods vehicle because of the nature of the use to which the vehicle has been put to use at that time. 6. A vehicle like a passenger car is not meant for carriage of goods. A motor car has been defined under Section 2(26), which reads as follows:- "Motor car means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage." 7. All motor cars have a boot or a dickey to carry goods. Sometime even a carrier is put on the top for carriage of goods. Supposing goods are being carried in such a vehicle would it mean that the vehicle is a goods carriage? In my view it will depend on the facts of each case. If the goods which are being carried are the luggage which any passenger normally carries with him then there can be no manner of doubt that the vehicle would not be termed as a goods carriage. Assuming that the vehicle is being used to carry something other than the belongings of the owner of the vehicle, in such a circumstance also it is not necessary that the vehicle would be termed as a goods vehicle. Supposing a person buys a refrigerator or air conditioner and decides to transport it in his own vehicle then also the vehicle may not be a goods carriage. Even if such vehicle belongs to friend or close relative and the transportation is being done not for any financial consideration the same principle may apply. Supposing a person buys a refrigerator or air conditioner and decides to transport it in his own vehicle then also the vehicle may not be a goods carriage. Even if such vehicle belongs to friend or close relative and the transportation is being done not for any financial consideration the same principle may apply. The problem, however, will arise where a person carries goods and has charged some money for carriage of these goods then obviously the vehicle would be used as a goods carriage vehicle and there would be a violation of the terms of policy since a private car is not meant to be given out for hire. Another instance could be where the owner himself fills up the car with goods which may belong to him but which are being transported for commercial business. In such a case if a person folds the seats, fills up the car with goods meant for sale then the Insurance Company may be justified in raising an argument that the vehicle was being used as a goods vehicle and therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. However, this would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and each case would have to be decided on its own merit. 8. The provisions of the Act and Rules which have been brought to my notice do not comprehend of such a composite vehicle, which is meant both for carrying passengers and the rear of the vehicle is also used for carrying goods. A passenger may buy such a vehicle for his own use for various reasons and one of them could be when the person is interested in some out door activities and has to carry some equipment in this flat bed at the back which cannot easily be carried in a normal passenger car. In such a case, if the vehicle is registered as a private vehicle and is used mainly for the transportation of the passengers and not for the carriage of goods, a vehicle of this sort would not fall within the definition of goods carriage. In such a case, if the vehicle is registered as a private vehicle and is used mainly for the transportation of the passengers and not for the carriage of goods, a vehicle of this sort would not fall within the definition of goods carriage. Therefore, if such a vehicle is registered as a private vehicle then a presumption would arise that it is meant for private personal use and in such case if it is proved that it was actually hired out for carriage of passenger or for carriage of goods there would be a violation of the terms of policy and the Insurance Company would be entitled to raise such a defence. In case such a vehicle at the time of the registration is got registered as a transport vehicle then the question would arise as to whether it is a goods carriage or passenger vehicle because a transport vehicle can cover both. If the registration is clear that the vehicle was meant for carriage of goods then the vehicle would be treated to be a goods carriage since that was the intention of the owner at the time when he got the vehicle registered. However, I have come across a number of cases where the registration is not very clear. Then the purpose for which the vehicle was being used at the relevant time becomes relevant in view of the definition of goods carriage. 9. Section 41 of the Act deals with the registration of the vehicles and states how registration has to be made. The registration certificate has to be in Form 23 and in the opening portion one of the alternative descriptions given is "goods vehicle". Therefore, normally the Registering authority at the time of registration of the vehicle should make it clear whether the vehicle is registered as goods vehicle or not because that would make the intention of the owner clear at the very first instance. Similarly what is the description of the vehicle given in the policy of Insurance would also give an indication of the intention of the parties. Similarly what is the description of the vehicle given in the policy of Insurance would also give an indication of the intention of the parties. In case in the policy of Insurance the vehicle is shown to be a goods vehicle then there would be a presumption that the vehicle is a goods vehicle and it would be for the party which alleges that the vehicle was not a goods vehicle to prove that the vehicle in question was not a goods vehicle. On the other hand in case the vehicle is registered as a private vehicle then the burden would lie upon the party who alleges that the vehicle is not a private vehicle. The table which has been issued vide notification dated 5th November, 2004 also defines certain vehicles as transport vehicles and certain vehicles as non transport vehicles. The same type of vehicle can fall within the meaning of transport vehicle if it is meant for carriage of goods. 10. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate, urges that a camper van is included in the list of transport vehicle. However, the camper van as defined in the notification in question is a vehicle which has seats and table, sleeping accommodation which may be converted from the seats, cooking and storage facilities. The vehicles with which we are dealing do not have these furnishings and therefore, though they may be named as Camper by the manufacturer but they are actually not Camper vans or trailers within the meaning of the notification. 11. It is very important for the Registering Authority at the time of the registration of the vehicles to clearly define whether the vehicle is a transport vehicle or not. If it is a transport vehicle then it must be clearly found out and stated whether it is a goods carriage vehicle or a passenger vehicle. The Registering Authority must, in my opinion, clearly mention in the Registration Certificate under what category the vehicle has been registered. The reason to say this is that under Section 53 of the Act powers have been given to the registering authority to suspend registration and one of the grounds for suspending registration is that the vehicle is used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such. The reason to say this is that under Section 53 of the Act powers have been given to the registering authority to suspend registration and one of the grounds for suspending registration is that the vehicle is used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such. Section 56 of the Act lays down that any vehicle which is registered as a transport vehicle will not be deemed to be valid registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness. It is thus obvious that even the registration of a transport vehicle is not valid in case there is no fitness certificate of the vehicle in question. This again shows that it is very important that at the time of registration of the vehicle the Registering Authority should clearly indicate whether the vehicle is registered as a transport vehicle or non transport vehicle. Normally, such registration would be made as per the notification referred to above. But when the vehicle can be classified both as a transport and a non-transport vehicle then the owner at the time of registration must clearly indicate as to in which category he wants his vehicle to be registered and thereafter subsequent provisions of the Act would apply as are applicable to the particular category in question. When a vehicle is registered as a transport vehicle Section 58 becomes applicable and the Central Government has been given vast powers under this Section to define the maximum unladen weight, maximum laden weight, maximum axle weight of the vehicle. Under Section 59 of the Act the Government may fix different age limits for the vehicle and while doing so private vehicles are normally given a longer age span than transport vehicles. 12. It is also important to note that Chapter V of the Act deals with the control of transport vehicles. This entire chapter is only applicable to transport vehicles and not to private vehicles. No vehicle can be used as a transport vehicle unless it has a permit to ply as a transport vehicle and comply with the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulation framed thereunder. 13. It would be important to note that the transport vehicles have to follow different rules and regulation as indicated above but in some cases even the taxes payable are different for transport vehicles and private vehicles. 13. It would be important to note that the transport vehicles have to follow different rules and regulation as indicated above but in some cases even the taxes payable are different for transport vehicles and private vehicles. Similarly, the premium charged by the Insurance Companies is totally different. There has to be a synergy between the vehicle, the registration thereof and the insurance policy and as such the first authority which is the registering authority must be clear as to under which category it is registering the vehicle. 14. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that in future in the State of H.P. the Registering Authority while registering any vehicle should clearly state whether the vehicle has been registered as a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle. If it is registered as a transport vehicle it should be clearly mentioned whether it is registered as a goods carriage vehicle or a passenger service vehicle or otherwise. It would in fact be better if an affidavit is obtained from the owner in this regard. Therefore, a direction is issued to all the Registering and Licensing Authority in the State of Himachal Pradesh to ensure that w.e.f. 1st September, 2012 this judgement is complied with in letter and spirit. A copy of this judgement be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as the Secretary (Transport) who shall ensure that copy of this judgement is sent to all the Registering and Licensing Authority, who shall comply with the same in future. 15. Coming to the cases in hand, I am of the view that the vehicle with which we are concerned could fall in three categories; they could be used as private vehicles; they could be used as goods carriage vehicle with the owners travelling in the cab or they could be used as passenger service vehicle with the luggage of the passenger being carried in the flat open space. Therefore, each case will have to be decided on its own merit and while deciding under what category the vehicle falls one will have to look at the registration certificate, the Insurance policy and also the actual use to which the vehicle used at the time when the accident took place. 16. In this case the vehicle in question is a Bolero Camper. 16. In this case the vehicle in question is a Bolero Camper. The RC of the vehicle is Ext.RW-1 and the vehicle is shown to be owned by Shashi Bhushan and registered as a Light Transport Vehicle. However, it is not very clear whether the vehicle is being used as a passenger vehicle or a goods vehicle. The policy issued by the Insurance Company i.e. United India Insurance Company shows that it is being issued for goods carrying (other than 3-WH) Public Carriers Package Policy. Therefore, it is obvious that the vehicle is shown to be a goods carriage. 17. The allegation in this case was that deceased Milap Chand was travelling in the vehicle as goods owner. According to the claimants the deceased had hired the vehicle to carry goods i.e. pea seeds from Chuling to Rampur and ration from Rampur to Chuling. The owner in his reply admitted this fact. The stand of the Insurance Company was that the vehicle was registered and insured as a goods carriage commercial vehicle and passengers were not permitted to be carried in that vehicle and the deceased was not owner of the goods but was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The statement of the claimant Zangmo Devi is not very relevant because she is not a witness to the hiring of the vehicle and therefore, cannot say in what capacity the deceased was travelling in the vehicle. Shri Dhan Singh Chauhan, Sub Inspector (CID) states that he was posted in Bhawa Nagar Police Station as SHO from December 2003 to February 2007. On 22.11.2006 vehicle No. HP-27A-0745 met with an accident near Chil Mour at Nigulsari. He went to the spot and during the investigation he found that the vehicle was being driven by owner Shashi Bhushan from Rampur to Chuling. The vehicle had gone down the road and Milap Chand and one woman died due to the accident. During the investigation he found that ration was loaded in the vehicle which was lying on the hill side. RW-2 Raj Kumar was admittedly travelling in the vehicle in question. He is a student. According to him he along-with Milap Chand and Gian Devi were travelling in the Bolero Camper belonging to Shri Shashi Bhushan. They were going from Rampur to Kinnaur. RW-2 Raj Kumar was admittedly travelling in the vehicle in question. He is a student. According to him he along-with Milap Chand and Gian Devi were travelling in the Bolero Camper belonging to Shri Shashi Bhushan. They were going from Rampur to Kinnaur. He states that Milap Chand and Gian Devi had purchased some ration at Rampur and loaded the same in the vehicle. He was also carrying some luggage. This shows that ration was being carried in the vehicle. He denied the suggestion put by the Insurance Company that there was no ration being carried in the vehicle. He admits that in his presence no talk took place with regard to the fare of the vehicle but states that the vehicle was hired by late Shri Milap Chand. The Insurance Company has examined basically one witness i.e. Smt. Shashi Saini, who was the administrative officer of the company at Shimla. She has no personal knowledge but has placed on record the report of the surveyor. The surveyor has not been examined and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this report cannot be looked into. PW-3 Kanga Lal in his cross-examination admitted that the deceased Milap Chand and Shashi Bhushan owner of the vehicle were cousins. RW-1 Shashi Bhushan has admitted the case of the claimants. In cross examination by the Insurance Company he has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not travelling as owner of the goods. 18. Keeping in view the above discussion, it is more than obvious that the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the deceased and the owner of the vehicle were cousins, I find no reason why a cousin could not hire the vehicle. In fact, a person would like to hire a vehicle from a known party. The Insurance Company could have led evidence to show that the vehicle had not been hired. It did not do so. It did not even care to examine the surveyor who had carried out the survey. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be said that there was breach of the policy. Therefore, the appeal of the Insurance policy in this case is rejected. 19. It did not do so. It did not even care to examine the surveyor who had carried out the survey. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be said that there was breach of the policy. Therefore, the appeal of the Insurance policy in this case is rejected. 19. In this case PW-1 Labzang, father of the deceased Gian Devi made a statement on oath that on 21.11.2006 he and his daughter had gone to Rampur to purchase ration, etc. On the same day they purchased rice, dal, sugar, etc. and he sent the same through his daughter Gian Devi in Bolero Camper HP-27A-0745 owned by Shashi Bhushan. According to this witness he loaded the goods in the camper. In cross-examination by the Insurance Company this witness stated that they had loaded two bags of Atta, 4-5 bags of rice and about 12-15 k.g. sugar in the vehicle. He also stated that the hire charges were fixed at Rs. 1200/-. 20. From the evidence it is more than apparent that the vehicle was hired for the transport of the ration being carried by the owners of the good and both the deceased were travelling as owners of the goods. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape of his liability and therefore, this appeal is also rejected. 21. The claim petition was filed by Shri Dildar Singh through his wife as his attorney. The vehicle in this case is Bolero Camber bearing registration No. HP-48-9061. The registration certificate Ext.RY shows that the vehicle is registered as Bolero Camper and against the column relating to type of body it is shown as passenger and load carrier. The vehicle also has a certificate of fitness. The vehicle in this case is also registered as goods carriage commercial vehicle under the policy. Therefore, for all practical purposes this vehicle deemed to be a goods vehicle. In the claim petition filed by the claimant himself the age of the person is given as 63 years and he is shown to be an Engineer and Consultant. Against para 10 it is stated that the insured was travelling in the vehicle from Batol side to Dunali. In the claim petition there is no mention whether the vehicle was hired or in what capacity the claimant was travelling in the vehicle. Against para 10 it is stated that the insured was travelling in the vehicle from Batol side to Dunali. In the claim petition there is no mention whether the vehicle was hired or in what capacity the claimant was travelling in the vehicle. The respondent No. 1 the Insurance Company in its reply took an objection that the petitioner was an unauthorised gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and the risk was not covered under the Insurance Policy. The respondent No. 2 stated that the petitioner was travelling in the ill fated vehicle as the owner of the goods but other than that nothing was stated. The claimant appeared as PW-3 and in his affidavit the claimant stated that he was an Engineer and Consultant with Suhami Power and Finance Corporation under Wezmen Private Limited and was drawing salary of Rs. 25,000/- In the affidavit not a word has been stated that the vehicle was hired for carrying any goods. While being cross-examined a suggestion was put to him by the owner that he was carrying goods in the vehicle. His reply is, "I do not remember whether I was carrying any goods in the vehicle." The owner and the driver did not step into the witness box but examined a witness Shri Jai Ram, who is stated to be a Coolie and according to him he was working as a Coolie on the vehicle on 3.11.2006 and he states that petitioner Dildar had boarded the vehicle along-with goods and that he had loaded the goods of Dildar on the vehicle. In cross-examination he has admitted that five persons were travelling in the vehicle. He admitted that the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle. He volunteered that petitioner Dildar was carrying 3-4 small boxes. He denied the suggestion that no goods were being carried in the vehicle. According to him he also sustained injuries in the vehicle and got treatment for three months. 22. After examining the entire evidence above, it is apparent that the claimant neither in the claim petition filed through his wife nor while appearing in the witness box made a mention that he was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods. The law, by now, is very well settled that owner of the goods should be owner of such goods which cannot be carried in an ordinary vehicle like a bus, etc. The law, by now, is very well settled that owner of the goods should be owner of such goods which cannot be carried in an ordinary vehicle like a bus, etc. If a person is carrying only a suit case that will not make him owner of goods with reference to a goods vehicle. The predominant purpose as laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and others (2008) 1 SCC 423 should be the carriage of goods in the vehicle in question. In cross-examination the claimant stated that he did not remember whether he was carrying any goods or not. It is unbelievable that a person who suffers a massive accident in which he suffers 80% injury would not remember what he was carrying with him on the said date. The owner for reasons best known to him did not appear in the witness box. Even the driver of the vehicle was not examined who would have been a best person to show in what capacity the claimant was travelling in the vehicle and most importantly even the log book of the vehicle has not been produced which is supposed to be in the capacity of the owner. When the driver is separate from the owner then the log book of the vehicle is necessary to be maintained. 23. Shri Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has placed reliance on the statement of Coolie Jai Ram. It is submitted that he was a Coolie attached with the vehicle and therefore, relying upon his statement the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods. I am unable to accept this submission. First of all there is no mention of this Coolie in any of the statement or in the written statement filed by the owner. No suggestion was put to the claimant that his goods were loaded by Coolie Jai Ram. Furthermore, it is virtually unbelievable that in a vehicle like a Bolero Camper any body would even hire a permanent Coolie for loading of the vehicle. The statement of the Coolie does not inspire confidence because in his examination-in-chief he could not even state what were the goods and in cross-examination he stated that there were only 3-4 small boxes (Petis). The statement of the Coolie does not inspire confidence because in his examination-in-chief he could not even state what were the goods and in cross-examination he stated that there were only 3-4 small boxes (Petis). Even if this statement is believed it would not mean that predominant purpose was carriage of goods. Therefore, this appeal of the Insurance Company is accepted. The Insurance Company is absolved of its liability and the owner alone shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation. 24. In view of the above discussion, FAO Nos. 64 of 2009 and 365 of 2009 are rejected and FAO No. 420 of 2010 is accepted. The Registrar General is directed to ensure that a copy of this judgement is sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as mentioned here-in-above.