JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the award dated 6.11.2009 passed by the Third MACT, Jabalpur in Claim Case No.8/2008 whereby the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh along with interest was granted to the respondent No.1 by ignoring the objection raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was goods vehicle and the deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Jairam was working in a tent house as a Manager and worker. On 8.4.2007 he was taking luggage of the tent house in a vehicle bearing registration No.MKE/T/J-0880 and due to accident Jairam fell down from the vehicle and died. The respondent No.1 preferred a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The Tribunals after framing of the issues and recording of the evidence of the parties found that no violation of the policy condition was done by the driver or insured person, and therefore the Insurance Company was also held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant took a plea that the deceased Jairam was a passenger in the goods vehicle, and therefore the Insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. However, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant are dependent upon the evidence adduced by the parties. Manoj, owner of the tent house has stated on oath that the deceased was working as a Manager and electric mechanic (Electrician) for his tent house and he was taking luggage of tent house to a particular place according to the order given to the tent house. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this Court to para 6 and 7 of his statement that he did not keep any account to show that the deceased was working in his shop. It was also alleged that Santosh and Arjun were also sitting on the luggage in the loading tempo, and therefore the vehicle was being plied against the policy condition. However, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It was also alleged that Santosh and Arjun were also sitting on the luggage in the loading tempo, and therefore the vehicle was being plied against the policy condition. However, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is admitted that the deceased Jairam was travelling along with the luggage of the tent house, and therefore if the owner of the tent house has stated that he was the Manager of the tent house and he was going with the luggage as his representative, then if no written record has been shown, the testimony of Manoj is duly corroborated by the circumstances, in which the accident took place and Jairam had expired. It is proved by the witnesses that the deceased was going as a representative of owner of the goods loaded in the tempo, and therefore according to the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that the policy conditions were violated or the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and others, 2008(2) TAC 374 (SC), in which it is held that the representative of the owner of the goods can travel in the goods vehicle. In para 17 of that judgment, it is mentioned that it is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant stand on para 17 of that judgment that the deceased was not travelling in a cabin, and therefore he was not the representative of the owner of the goods. 6. If the entire judgment of the Apex Court is perused, then it is decided that the owner of the goods and his representative can travel in the goods vehicle and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. In the present case, the vehicle was a small auto rickshaw type loading vehicle in which there was no cabin so that the owner of the goods could sit in the cabin. In the present case, the vehicle was a small auto rickshaw type loading vehicle in which there was no cabin so that the owner of the goods could sit in the cabin. In the case of Cholleti Bharatamma (supra) the Apex Court did not express the view that if a representative of the owner of the goods is not sitting in the cabin then it would be the violation of the policy condition. Hence it is not so material that the deceased was sitting in the cabin or not. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no violation of the police condition is visible in the case, and therefore the Insurance Company does not absolve from its liability. There is no reason to accept the present appeal for final hearing. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the court below along with its record for information.