JUDGMENT B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. O.P. No. 398 of 2006 was filed by the injured-Yarlagadda George against the driver, owner and insurer of Bajaj Tempo bearing No. AP-37-V-8059 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 13.04.2005 for the claim made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for brevity) for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- since awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 85,364/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, with joint liability by award dated 05.10.2006. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the injured preferred M.A.C.M.A. No. 1072 of 2007 that compensation is utterly low. Equally aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurer filed MAC.M.A. No. 1712 of 2011 with contentions that the said injured is no other than unauthorized passenger of the goods carriage among 24 passengers in all travelling and the claim that some 'Buttabommalu' for playing in 'Jathara' carrying that belongs to one Tadikonda Jayaraju as contended by the injured is untenable for nothing to show out of the 24 passengers, who is owner of the goods and the 'Buttabommalu' are not the gods even within the purview of the Act and thereby, the Tribunal went wrong in fixing joint liability and even the policy not covered the risk of the injured either gratuitous or non-gratuitous passenger unauthorized in the goods vehicle to travel. 2. Perused the material on record. 3. Heard the respective contentions on both sides in the respective appeals. 4. For convenience sake, the parties are arrayed as they were before the Court below. 5. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are (1) Whether the injured was owner or attendant of goods and if 'Buttabommalu' are goods within the meaning of the Act and if so, whether the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle i.e., the first respondent to the claim petition and if so, quantum of compensation is not just and requires enhancement as contended by the claimant in the appeal and with what observations? (2) To what result? 6. Point No. 1: There is not dispute on the factum of several persons were travelling in the goods carriage as per Ex. A1-FIR contents with such a load in motion by one of the said persons. (2) To what result? 6. Point No. 1: There is not dispute on the factum of several persons were travelling in the goods carriage as per Ex. A1-FIR contents with such a load in motion by one of the said persons. The contention of the injured-claimant that FIR is not evidence is untenable that too when the claimant placed reliance on it covered by Ex. A1 marked through him. As also laid down by the Apex Court in NIC v. Savitri Devi (2013) 11 SCC 554 and NIC v. Rettani (2009) 2 SCC 75 . 7. There is also no dispute on the factum that 'Buttabommalu', which are the playing tools big in size generally as per local custom being played through the skilled players by wearing it covering the body to some extent with breathing space and breathing provision and thus are not the small items to carry but for being carried as goods. For carrying the 'Buttabommalu', which are even articles made of wood are pop and delicate that some persons must attend cannot be disputed. Having regard to the above, they are within the meaning of goods as per Section 2(13) of the Act, which speaks "goods" includes live stocks, 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. Thus, the said 'Buttabommalu' squarely within the meaning of goods defined by Section 2(13) of the Act. 8. The injured-P.W. 1 categorically deposed that he is an attendant on behalf of the owner of 'Buttabommalu' i.e., Tadikonda Jayaraju. There is nothing in the evidence of R.W. 1 on behalf of the insurer that he is not the attendant but a mere unauthorized passenger. Once one person can travel as owner of goods and there are no other goods in the vehicle but for the 'Buttabommalu' and the claimant claims categorically as an attendant of the goods, the owner or attendant of the goods being a third party and the insurer are liable to compensation under Section 147 of the Act. The law is fairly settled in this regard. The law is fairly settled in this regard. When such is the case, the insurer cannot contend that the injured is one among the 24 unauthorized passengers though other persons are not the attendants of the goods but for even going in the vehicle some among them for playing the 'Buttabommalu' in 'Jathara'. It is not even the case of the insurer that there is already another claim made by owner of goods or another person as attendant of goods and the same was specific on that count and again specifying any claim on that count does not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in fixing joint liability on the insurer to indemnify the owner so far as the claim of the injured as attendant travelling with the goods 'Buttabommalu' on behalf of its original owner for going to 'Jathara' for playing the 'Buttabommalu' in 'Jathara'. 9. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the injuries sustained by the claimant are three grievous and one simple and the evidence of P.W. 2-doctor clearly speaks that was also observed by the Tribunal in para-7 of its award in answering issue No. 2 that the injured sustained two fractures and one grievous injury. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- each. In fact, as per Ex. A4-wound certificate issued by private hospital, there is a fracture of left clavicle lateral 1/3rd and fracture of C-6 and 7th vertebra of the spinal process. It is the contention therefrom by the claimants that the C-6 and C-7 are two fractures. Even then for the clavicle fracture, it is just to award Rs. 20,000/- compensation each for the C-6 and C-7 fractures, total Rs. 40,000/- can be awarded. 10. The Tribunal awarded another sum of Rs. 15,000/- but there is only one simple injury and for the simple injury, it is just to award Rs. 2,000/- compensation. Again awarding of compensation at Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering in fact does not arise thereby that it to be reduced as rightly contended by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 3,000/- towards attendant charges, which are just to uphold. Whereas, coming to loss of earnings and medical expenses, Ex. A7 bills though speak only Rs. 4, 364/- as the fractures are three in number as discussed supra it is just to award Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses and loss of earnings Rs. 3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 3,000/- towards attendant charges, which are just to uphold. Whereas, coming to loss of earnings and medical expenses, Ex. A7 bills though speak only Rs. 4, 364/- as the fractures are three in number as discussed supra it is just to award Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses and loss of earnings Rs. 6,000/- for two months. All comes to Rs. 84,000/- and what the Tribunal awarded Rs. 85,364/- thereby requires no interference. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered. 11. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed