JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. (Oral) Both these appeals are directed against the award, dated 27th September, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, (Fast Track), Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Pet./MAC No. 103/04, RBT.MAC No. 11 of 2005, titled as Smt. Teji Devi and others versus Rakesh Mohan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,93,000/- with interest @ 7.50% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till the realization of the amount came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals. 2. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited, by the medium of FAO No. 9 of 2007, has questioned the impugned award so far it relates to the findings whereby it has been asked to satisfy the award. 3. The claimants, by the medium of FAO No. 226 of 2006, have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. This order shall govern both these appeals being outcome of the same accident and award. 5. The owner-insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. Brief facts : 6. The vehicle-jeep, bearing registration No. HP-49A- 0292, owned by Shri Rakesh Mohan, was being driven by driver, namely Shri Amrit Sharma, rashly and negligently, on 13th October, 2004, met with accident near Village Talara, District Kullu, and Shri Khem Raj, who was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the vegetables, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 7. The claimants, being the dependents of the deceased- Khem Raj, filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that their sole bread earner, namely Shri Khem Raj, was a green grocer and used to sell fresh vegetables, was travelling in the offending vehicle with fresh vegetables, which he had to take to Sabzi Mandi Takoli for sale; after selling the said vegetables, was travelling in the offending vehicle back to his native place, met with the accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 8. 8. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited, the owner-insured and the driver resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 9. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 18th March, 2005 : “1. Whether Khem Raj died due to the accident of jeep No. HP-49A-0292 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2? OPP 2. If issue 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 4. Whether the deceased was an unauthorised/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle in question at the time of accident, as alleged, if so its effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 10. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, decided all issues in favour of the claimants and against the driver, owner- insured and the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited. 11. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has questioned the same on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with liability and the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation. Issue No. 4 : 12. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of vegetables, cannot be said to be gratuitous passenger. 13. It is not known how the Tribunal has come to the conclusion, while deciding issue No. 4, that deceased was gratuitous passenger. Neither there is any pleading to this effect nor evidence has been led. The only ground taken by the insurance company is that while coming back from Sabzi Mandi, the accident occurred; at that time the deceased was not travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods. 14. I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. It is admitted by all the parties that the deceased has hired the vehicle for transporting his vegetables to Sabzi Mandi and was returning back to his native place in the same vehicle at the time of accident, thus, was owner of the goods, cannot be said to be gratuitous passenger. 15. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. 15. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kamla and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 1550 , has also discussed the same issue while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Cholleti Bharatamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) and held that when the passenger had hired the vehicle for transporting his goods for selling and was returning in the same vehicle then the passenger is not unauthorised/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle till he reaches the place from where he had hired the vehicle. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 to 11 of the judgment herein : “8. Coming to the second plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2, insurance company shows that they had only pleaded that the deceased was admittedly not employee of the insured and was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it was submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant had also relied upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maghi Ram, 2010 ACJ 2096 (HP), wherein a learned Judge of this Court has considered the question and had observed that the Insurance Company is liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. It was observed that it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. 10. It was observed that it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. 10. The allegations made by the petitioners in the petition as well as in the evidence were that the deceased had gone after hiring the truck with his vegetable and was coming in the same vehicle when the accident took place. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila, 2008 ACJ 1381 (P&H), wherein it was observed that a passenger was returning after selling his goods when the vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that the deceased was no longer owner of the goods as he had sold them off. It was observed that the deceased had hired the vehicle for transporting his animals for selling and was returning in the same vehicle. It was held that the deceased was not an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle till he reached the place from where he had hired the vehicle. 11. The above decision clearly applies to the present facts, which are similar to the facts of the case and accordingly, I am inclined to hold that the deceased was not an unauthorized/ gratuitous passenger. No conditions of the insurance policy have been proved that the risk of the owner of goods was not covered in the insurance policy and as such, there is no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is rejected accordingly. 16. Applying the test to the instant case, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods at the time of accident and not as a gratuitous passenger. 17. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, which it has failed to do so. 18. The Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Deepa Devi & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7882, has set aside the judgment made by a Division Bench of this Court whereby the liability was fastened upon the owner, State Government and the insurer jointly and severally to satisfy the award. 18. The Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Deepa Devi & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7882, has set aside the judgment made by a Division Bench of this Court whereby the liability was fastened upon the owner, State Government and the insurer jointly and severally to satisfy the award. In that case, the vehicle was requisitioned by the State Government during the Assembly Elections, met with the accident during the said period and the owner, State Government and the insurer came to be held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the award by this High Court. The Apex Court held that the owner was not having any control over the vehicle during the said period as the same was requisitioned by the State Government for its use. The owner had no option, but to surrender the possession/control of the same, thus, the vehicle was not in his control. The Apex Court has exonerated the owner of the vehicle and saddled the State Government with liability. 19. Applying the ratio to the present case, the offending vehicle was hired on the said date by the deceased alongwith other persons for taking vegetables to Sabzi Mandi and for back journey to their native place. The owner has accepted the request of the deceased and also the fare, but had not surrendered the possession of the vehicle and the same was in his control. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. 20. Thus, it is held that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and the owner-insured has not committed any breach. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. 21. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has not questioned the findings on other issues, i.e. issues No. 2, 3 and 5. However, I have gone through the findings recorded. Issue No. 3 : 22. The insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 5 : 23. However, I have gone through the findings recorded. Issue No. 3 : 22. The insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 5 : 23. It was for the insurer to prove that the owner-insured has committed any breach and the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which it has failed to do so. Accordingly, findings on issue No. 5 are also upheld. 24. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the amount awarded is on the higher side and is within its right to contest the same in view of the application laid by them under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) before the Tribunal. 25. I have gone through the findings recorded on issue No. 2. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and, after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, came to the conclusion that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month; applying the multiplier of 14' in view of the Schedule appended with the MV Act read with the age of the deceased, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,93,000/- in favour of the claimants. 26. The argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants that the compensation awarded is meager is not correct. In terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, multiplier of 14' is appropriate. 27. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs. 6,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love, affection and estate, cannot be said to be meager. 28. Having said so, both the appeals merit dismissal. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 27. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs. 6,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love, affection and estate, cannot be said to be meager. 28. Having said so, both the appeals merit dismissal. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 29. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 30. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.