Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 23.07.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 44S/2 of 2006, titled as Pardeep Kumar versus Shri Kailash Chand and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,95,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the appellant-insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 3. The claimant-injured and the owner have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. The following questions are to be determined in this appeal: (i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly held that the owner-insured has not committed any willful breach and saddled the appellant-insurer with liability? (ii) Whether the amount awarded is excessive? 5. The claimant-injured has specifically averred in paras 10 and 21(ii) of the amended claim petition that he was traveling in the offending vehicle for purchase of the apple boxes because he was agriculturist and horticulturist and was dealing with the same. It is apt to reproduce paras 10 and 21 (ii) of the amended claim petition herein: "10. ......... The injured petitioner was travelling in the illfated vehicle Swaraj Mazda No. HP631119 from Khamadi to Adarshnagar, in connection with the purchase of apple boxes since he was doing the business of Sale & purchase of Apple. Empty apple boxes were also loaded in the vehicle which were purchased from Guddu Singh S/o Murkhi R/o Vill. Shalog P.O. Kholighat, Teh. Rampur, Distt. Shimla, SubTeh. Nankhari, Dist. Shimla, H.P. xxx xxx xxx 21. ............... ii) That the petitioner also used to buy the apples from the owners of the apples and to sell the apples in the market as such Chandigarh, Delhi etc., on the date of accident the petitioner was going to Adarshnagar after hiring the said Truck involved in the accident. empty apple boxes were in the vehicle because at Adarshnagar, there were no body to supply empty apples boxes. He has purchased apple orchard on contract basis at Adarshnagar, and his labour were working there in the Apple orchard. empty apple boxes were in the vehicle because at Adarshnagar, there were no body to supply empty apples boxes. He has purchased apple orchard on contract basis at Adarshnagar, and his labour were working there in the Apple orchard. They have demanded Empty apple boxes (Caron Boxes) on telephonically so he immediately hired this vehicle and loaded these empty boxes in the said vehicle. He was travelling as owner of goods with the ill fated vehicle." 6. The owner-insured has filed the reply to the amended claim petition and has admitted the stand of the claimant-injured. It is apt to reproduce reply on merits to para 10 and 21 (ii) filed by the owner-insured herein:- "10. That in para 10 of the petition, the contents that empty apple boxes were also loaded in the vehicle which were purchased from Guddu Singh son of Shri Mirkh, R/o village Salog, P.O. Kholighat, sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla (HP) is denied for want of knowledge and rest of contents are admitted. xxx xxx xxx 21. .............. (ii) That in this para the contents that petitioner use to buy the apples of the owners of the apple orchard and use to sell the apples in the market and on the date of accident the petitioner was going to Adarshnagar after hiring the illfeted vehicle are admitted and rest of the contents of this para are denied for want of knowledge." 7. Having said so, it is admitted by the owner-insured of the offending vehicle that the claimant-injured had hired the offending vehicle and was travelling in the same at the relevant point of time alongwith empty apple boxes, which he had purchased from one Shri Guddu Singh. 8. The Tribunal has made discussions, while determining issues No. 3, 4, 10 and 11. Even, said Shri Guddu Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW4 and has corroborated the version of the claimant-injured. 9. The claimant-injured has proved by leading evidence that the offending vehicle was hired and he was travelling in the same alongwith apple boxes at the relevant point of time. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the relevant point of time. 10. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the relevant point of time. 10. 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 the person, who had hired the vehicle for transporting goods, was returning in the same vehicle, met with the accident, cannot be said to be an unauthorised/gratuitous passenger. 11. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 to 11 of the judgment rendered in Kamla's case (supra) 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 163A 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.” 12. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a bunch of two appeals, FAO No. 9 of 2007, titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Teji Devi & others, being the lead case, decided on 22nd August, 2014; FAO No. 22 of 2007, titled as Naresh Verma versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others, decided on 26th September, 2014, FAO No. 77 of 2010, titled as NHPC versus Smt. Sharda Devi & others, decided on 17th October, 2014, and a bunch of two appeals, FAO NO. 638 of 2008, titleda s National Insurance Company versus Smt. Sundri Devi and another, being the lead case, decided on 3rd July, 2015. 13. 638 of 2008, titleda s National Insurance Company versus Smt. Sundri Devi and another, being the lead case, decided on 3rd July, 2015. 13. Applying the test to the instant case, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimant-injured was not travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 14. The appellant-insurer has also taken a ground before the Tribunal that the owner-insured has committed willful breach, but has failed to lead evidence and prove the said factum. 15. It is apt to record herein that the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal relating to the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, driving licence, registration certificate, fitness certificate, goods carriage permit of the offending vehicle and collusion between the claimant-injured and the owner-insured. 16. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made discussions and saddled the appellant-insurer with liability, needs no interference. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer further argued that the amount awarded is excessive. Though, it has taken permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act"), but has not been able to prove as to how the amount is excessive. 18. However, I have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has made discussions in paras 26 to 32 of the impugned award. A meager amount has been awarded to the claimant-injured. He has suffered 40% permanent disability, which has been proved in terms of the disability certificate, Ext. PW1/A. The claimant-injured has also placed on record the documents, which do disclose that that the claimant-injured has spent more than Rs. 25,000/- as medical expenses. The Tribunal, has taken the monthly income of the claimant-injured as Rs. 4,500/- per month and after taking into consideration the age of the claimant-injured to be 31 years, has applied the multiplier of 16', which is just and appropriate in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, and has assessed loss of income to the tune of Rs. 1800/- per month, while taking into account 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant-injured, which has shattered his physical frame and awarded Rs. 3,45,600/- under the head 'loss of future income'. 19. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding Rs. 25,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering and loss of amenities' in view of 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant-injured. But, unfortunately, the claimant-injured has not questioned the amount awarded under this head, I reluctantly uphold the amount awarded under this head. 20. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 21. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 22. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.