JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Kurnool at Nandyal in MVOP No.392 of 2008. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant. 3. This appeal is filed challenging the finding of the Tribunal which held that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4. According to the claimant, on 7.7.2007 while he was returning home along with goods by purchasing one bull at Nandyal Shandy in goods carrying three wheeler bearing No. AP 21 U 8703, the said vehicle turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver and the claimant received injuries. He filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.l,00,000/-. After making enquiry into the said claim, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The accident occurred on 7.7.2007, but the crime was registered on 17.8.2007 i.e., after lapse of 40 days. The learned Tribunal had dealt with the delay and found from Ex.A2 wound certificate that the claimant was admitted in Gouri Gopal Hospital on 9.7.2007 and the medical bills filed by him also revealed that he was treated in the said hospital during the relevant period and rightly held that on account of the delay, the happening of the accident as asserted by the claimant could not be doubted. The main contention of the appellant/insurance company, however, is that the finding of the learned Tribunal fastening the liability on it is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company that the vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and as per the terms of the policy as well as by virtue of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, travel of passengers in the said goods vehicle is prohibited and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The learned Counsel also invited the attention of this Court to Rule 253 of the A.P.M.V. Rules which provides certain conditions for carrying animals in a goods carriage vehicle. The said provision prescribes the size of the vehicle for the purpose of carrying animals in the goods carriage vehicles. The plea of violation of Rule 253 of the said Rules is taken for the first time in the appeal and it is not specifically pleaded by the insurance company in its counter filed before the Tribunal. It was only contended before the Tribunal that travel of passengers in the goods vehicle is prohibited and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the burden is on the insurance company to prove the size of the vehicle to enable the Court to arrive at a finding that the claimant is not supposed to take the bull in the said vehicle. In any event, in the absence of specific plea raised by the insurance company in its counter, the same cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this appeal. 6. Even of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act sub-section (13) does not totally prohibit carrying animals in the goods carriage vehicle and it only speaks of certain conditions to be fulfilled for the purpose of carrying animals in the goods carriage vehicle. Sub-section (13) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines "goods" as under: " "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." 7. Therefore, from the definition of goods it can be understood that a bull can be carried in a goods vehicle. 8. Perusal of Ex. B 1 - policy of insurance shows that the vehicle is a commercial vehicle and the policy issued is a package policy. The type of vehicle is mentioned as delivery van. Therefore, from the definition of goods it can be understood that a bull can be carried in a goods vehicle. 8. Perusal of Ex. B 1 - policy of insurance shows that the vehicle is a commercial vehicle and the policy issued is a package policy. The type of vehicle is mentioned as delivery van. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant in support of his contention that a bull can be carried in a goods vehicle by its owner and the owner cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger relied on a decision in Timariya v. Devendra and others, 2011 AAC 25 (MP) Indore Bench, wherein it is held that: "Since the claimant had purchased the cattle from market and in the vehicle in question he was travelling along with cattle and he paid fare for cattle also the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to him to the injuries suffered by him by virtue of Section 147 of the M. V. Act". 9. In the instant case also, the insurance policy being package policy and the claimant having purchased the bull in the shandy, was travelling in the said van at relevant time, he being the owner of the goods cannot be treated as gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle and the learned Tribunal in my view rightly held that the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to him. The finding of the Tribunal as to the liability of the insurance company having been arrived at correctly• does not require any interference in this appeal. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.