Judgment This appeal is filed by New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging the order dated 13.12.2005 passed in O.P.No.796 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). The appellant herein is the second respondent and the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- At about midnight on 15.08.2000, the claimant was proceeding to his native place – Kavali from Allagadda in the offending Lorry bearing registration No.TN-09-D-9869 along with his luggage consisting of cooking vessels, stove, cylinder, suitcase, bed etc., after paying luggage charges of Rs.300/-. When the offending lorry reached Rangaram village, Mydukur Mandal on National High Way No.18, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner and at high speed and thereby lost control over the vehicle and dashed against a stationed lorry near a Dhaba at 01:30 PM. Due to the said accident, the cleaner and the claimant received grievious injuries. They were immediately shifted to Community Health Centre, Proddutur, where the cleaner succumbed to the injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, wherein he was treated as In-patient for 13 days, i.e., from 16.08.2000 to 28.08.2000. The doctors advised the claimant for periodical check-up. In December, 2000, when the claimant approached Aravind Eye Hospital, Madhurai for treatment to his right eye CFCF-Keratoplasty, the Chief Medical Officer of the said hospital examined the claimant and certified that there is only 10% chance of success in restoring vision to his right eye and further certified that there is no chance for recovery of vision to his left eye. Contending that he was aged 33 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident; that he was working as an Automobile Engineer with M/s. Priyadarshini Cements Limited, Unit-II, Sripuram, Kurnool and was earning Rs.7,400/- per month; that the accident resulted in his permanently disability and that the hopes and aspirations of his family members who are depending on him were badly affected, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The first respondent – owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. The second respondent – Insurance Company contested the matter and filed counter mainly contending that the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving licence to the drive the offending vehicle and that the petitioner himself contributed to the accident. The second respondent also filed additional counter contending that as per the FIR, the driver and the cleaner of the offending lorry left Hyderabad on 14.08.2000 and the lorry was empty and while they were on the way to Allagadda town, the claimant stopped the vehicle and requested the driver to take him to Mydukur and thus, the claimant was an unauthorised passenger. The Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the accident dated 15.08.2000 in which the petitioner received injuries was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing No.TN-09-D-9869? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 8 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.27 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one Atmaram Chaitanya was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 – Copy of Insurance Policy was marked. Exs.X.1 to X.6 were also marked. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.93,000/- towards loss of past income, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.25,000/- towards travelling expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- to the claimant. However, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was carrying stove utensils etc., and those items cannot be carried in a passenger vehicle and such items can be carried only in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the items carried by the claimant have to be treated as goods only. However, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was carrying stove utensils etc., and those items cannot be carried in a passenger vehicle and such items can be carried only in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the items carried by the claimant have to be treated as goods only. It is further observed that for entrusting goods to be carried from one place to another place, it is not necessary that the vehicle must be booked long before luggage is handed over for transportation and the items can be booked even mid-way of the journey and arrangement can be made on the spot before the items are loaded. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant and Sri K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are (1) whether the items carried by the petitioner can be treated as goods; (2) Whether such goods can be loaded mid-way; and (3) Whether the owner of the goods is entitled for compensation. After amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity), there cannot be any doubt to say that the owner of the goods is covered by the insurance company coverage. The definition for the word ‘goods’ has been defined in Section 2(13) of the Act as follows:- “ ‘goods’ includes live-stock, 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.” Admittedly, the word ‘luggage’ is not defined under the Act. Similarly, the word ‘personal effects’ is also not defined under the Act. The word ‘luggage’ has been defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “suit cases or other bags for a traveller’s belongings”. The Chambers Dictionary defines the word ‘luggage’ as “the suit cases and other baggage of a traveller”. The word ‘personal effects’ has been defined in the Chambers Dictionary as “those belongings worn or carried about one’s person; private or intimate possessions”. Thus, it appears that where a person is carrying a small bag or baggage or uses a suit case for carrying his belongings, such items can be treated as his luggage. The word ‘personal effects’ has been defined in the Chambers Dictionary as “those belongings worn or carried about one’s person; private or intimate possessions”. Thus, it appears that where a person is carrying a small bag or baggage or uses a suit case for carrying his belongings, such items can be treated as his luggage. But when a person has to carry big items such as Almirahs, cots, cylinders, big utensils etc., they cannot be treated as personal luggage. Luggage means a person should be in a position to lift with his hands and carry the same from one place to another and keep it in a place provided for keeping the luggage in a bus or a train. When a person has to shift a big cot or a Almirah or a gas-stove or a cylinder, such items cannot be kept in a small place provided for keeping luggage and, therefore, in my considered view, all such items have to be treated as ‘goods’. In the instant case, the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant was carrying cooking vessels, stove, cylinder, bed etc. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company did not show me any rule which enables a person to carry cylinders, gas-stoves etc., in a passenger vehicle. Normally, gas-stoves, cylinders, etc., which may endanger the other passengers, are not allowed in a passenger vehicle. Whenever a driver of a goods carrier offers to transport the items like gas-stove, cylinders, cots, almirahs, rice bags etc., and when such items are loaded in the vehicle, they have to be treated as goods alone and the owner of the goods or representatives of the owner accompanying such goods have to be treated as the owner or the representatives of the goods. In fact, all such items or goods which cannot be kept in the space provided for keeping the bags and baggage in a passenger bus or beneath the seat of a train, they have to be treated as ‘goods’ since such items cannot be carried in a passenger bus or a train. The size, weight of such items made all the difference. If the items are big in size or have weight, which a person cannot carry with his one hand, all such items have to be necessarily taken in a goods vehicle. The size, weight of such items made all the difference. If the items are big in size or have weight, which a person cannot carry with his one hand, all such items have to be necessarily taken in a goods vehicle. It may not be practicable to book all such items through parcel offices or transport offices. The next point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether such goods can be loaded mid-way. In the instant case, it appears that the lorry, after unloading the goods at its destination, was returning empty and the claimant seems to have loaded his goods on the way to Arlagadda town to transport the goods upto Mydukur. When a goods vehicle is empty or even if there are some goods in the lorry and when still some space is available in the lorry to carry some other goods, such space can be filled with some more goods. There is no rule which says that a goods vehicle should be loaded only with a particular type of goods and no other type of goods can be allowed into the goods vehicle. Where the owner of the goods wants to carry the goods which can fill half portion or 1/4th portion of lorry, then such owners of the goods may not get any goods vehicle to transport their goods. Moreover, there may be a situation where the lorry with half of the load may be proceeding from one destination to other destination and in the mid-way, the remaining part of the lorry can be filled with some other goods at some other place, i.e., in the mid-way. Thus, I hold that the owner of the vehicle has not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claimant has to be treated as the owner of the goods. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others ( 2008 ACJ 268 ). The words used in the said judgment are ‘small percentage of goods’. In the instant case, the goods loaded in the vehicle cannot be treated as small percentage of goods. Learned standing counsel for the appellant had also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case between Deddula Padmavathi and others Vs. The words used in the said judgment are ‘small percentage of goods’. In the instant case, the goods loaded in the vehicle cannot be treated as small percentage of goods. Learned standing counsel for the appellant had also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case between Deddula Padmavathi and others Vs. Maddala Srinivasa Rao and another ( 2005 ACJ 768 ). In that case, the passenger was said to be travelling with vegetable bags. This Court observed that number of vegetable bags and the other bags allegedly being carried and their value and weight were not mentioned by the claimant in that case. It was also observed that one or two bags of vegetables being carried by the passenger who boarded the lorry in the midway would not become goods within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. In view of the same, it is clear that the observations made by this court would not come to the rescue of the appellant in the instant case. Learned standing counsel for the appellant had also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case between The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. rep by its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada Vs. Bondili Sitharam Singh and others ( 1995 (1) ALT 696 ). Since the said judgment was rendered before the amendment of the Act, it cannot be treated as an authority. Learned standing counsel for the appellant had also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Parvathneni and another ( 2009 (8) SCC 785 ), wherein, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India was requested for constituting a larger bench to decide the question that if an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned standing counsel for the insurance company had also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Learned standing counsel for the insurance company had also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others (2005 (2) TAC 1 (SC)), wherein, it was held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. In the instant case, the claimant cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. On the other hand, Sri K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents had relied on the judgments in the cases between New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani and others ( 2003 (1) ALD 18 (SC)), Oriental Insurance Company Limiated Vs. Zaharulnisha and others ( 2008 (12) SCC 385 ), Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others (2004 (2) PLR 51), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and others (2006 (3) Scale 531), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur and others (2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC)), Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saju P.Paul and another ( AIR 2013 SC 1064 ), The United India Insurance Company Limited, Khammam Vs. Chava Venkateswara Rao and another ( 2003 (3) L.S. 46 )and New India Assurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada, A.P. Vs. United India Insurance Company limited, Chittoor Branch ( (2007) 3 ALT 282 ). The sum and substance of these judgments is to the effect that the insurance company should pay the amount to the claimant first and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, I hold that the Tribunal has assigned valid reasons for drawing logical conclusions and passed a reasoned award and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, stands closed.