JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 12.05.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Camp at Limbdi, Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 743, 745 to 747 of 1995, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals inter-alia contending that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has wrongly hold the liability of Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 2. The brief facts of the accident is that on 10.05.1995, the respondents were traveling in Chhakdo rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-8434 with their goods from Chotila to Thane. As the vehicle turned turtle due to negligent driving of the driver of Chhakdo rickshaw, the respondents sustained grievous injuries. An offence was registered by the police. Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal attributed sole negligence upon the driver of the chhakdo rickshaw and held that the driver, owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar for the appellant and learned Advocate Shri Haresh Patel for the Respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri Y.J. Patel for the Respondent No. 2. 4. This Court has perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned Advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar for the appellant- Oriental Insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence, which were available with it while appreciating the question as to whether the injured claimants were travelling along with goods or they were travelling as unauthorized passengers in the goods rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-8434. She has further contended that learned Tribunal has wrongly fasten upon the entire liability on the insurance company and she has therefore prayed to exonerate the liability of the insurance company. 6. Learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar has taken this Court through the definition of 'goods' provided under Clause 13 of Section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that in absence of clear pleading thereof, the learned Tribunal could not have believed that the injured claimants were traveling along with goods. She has further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the claimants were unauthorized passengers in the aforesaid vehicle. She has further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the claimants were unauthorized passengers in the aforesaid vehicle. In support of her contentions learned Advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatmma and Others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 423 , wherein she emphasized on Para Nos. 3 to 11 of the said judgment. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate Shri Haresh Patel for the Respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri Y.J. Patel for the Respondent No. 2 strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record, hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeals be dismissed. They have further contended that the injured claimants were present along with their goods and their risk is statutorily covered and therefore, the contentions raised by learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar for the appellant- Insurance company should not be believed. 8. The dispute raised pertains to the status of the injured claimants, as to whether they were travelling as the owner of goods in the offending Chhakdo rickshaw or they were traveling as unauthorized passengers thereof. Therefore, the evidence on record are required to be appreciated as such. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar for the insurance company, this Court has perused the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the aforesaid issue at para Nos. 17 to 20 in its judgment and award impugned. Undisputedly the incident occurred on 10.05.1995 i.e., after the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself was made operational since 14.11.1994, whereby the risk of owner of the goods is covered. 10. Undisputedly, on going through the pleadings of the respective claimants, it is noticed that they have clearly and categorically mentioned in the petitions that they were travelling along with goods in the said goods vehicle i.e. rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-8434. In order to prove the aforesaid factual position, they have been examined vide Exh. 42, 49, 51 and 65 respectively. 10. Undisputedly, on going through the pleadings of the respective claimants, it is noticed that they have clearly and categorically mentioned in the petitions that they were travelling along with goods in the said goods vehicle i.e. rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-8434. In order to prove the aforesaid factual position, they have been examined vide Exh. 42, 49, 51 and 65 respectively. In their depositions in examination-in-chief, they have clearly stated that they were working with Dotshela Company as labourers and they were travelling as fare paying passengers along with their instruments in the nature of farming instruments like spades, shovels and trikkam. 11. All the aforesaid claimants have been cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the insurance company, wherein the insurance company has challenged so far as the goods are concerned and claimants have sticked to their assertions made in the petitions as well as in examination-in-chief. They have contended that as the frequency of bus was very limited and in order to attend their labour work, they used to travel along with their goods in such goods vehicles in their daily routine. 12. FIR was lodged by one of the claimants i.e. Karshanbhai Shardulbhai Koli soon after the accident, wherein he has described the manner in which the incident has occurred and he has not stated anything with regard to the goods they were carrying along with them. Learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar has argued that even in the FIR, the said issue has not been disclosed. She has further contended that the said issue is also not revealed in the panchnama of the scene of accident came to be drawn soon after the accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal could not have believed that the claimants were traveling along with their goods. But on going through the cross-examination of first informant Karshanbhai Shardulbhai Koli, nothing in the nature of such contention raised before this Court has been put before the injured claimants by way of questions in the cross-examination. 13. After all the aforesaid persons were undisputedly working as labourers and traveling in the aforesaid goods vehicle in order to attend their labour work. 13. After all the aforesaid persons were undisputedly working as labourers and traveling in the aforesaid goods vehicle in order to attend their labour work. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly presumed in its findings that in such situation and the nature of their occupation, they might be carrying instruments along with them while traveling in the aforesaid goods vehicle and the said fact was not challenged, so far as the first informant is concerned. Not only that, even the insurance company has not examined the owner of aforesaid offending Chhakdo rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-8434 nor it has taken care to examine the driver of the said vehicle in order to prove the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the insurance company. 14. In light of the aforesaid discussion as well as material and evidence on the record, the status of injured claimants are established that they were traveling along with goods in the aforesaid offending Chhakado rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-8434. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar for Insurance Company more particularly in para Nos. 3 to 11 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cholleti Bharatmma (Supra) is of no help as in the aforesaid decision, the persons were found to be either traveling as unauthorized passengers or as passengers in the goods vehicles. 15. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the opinion that the injured claimants were travelling along with their goods and therefore, by virtue of provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, their risk is covered under the policy of insurance. In these circumstances, the contention raised by learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar for the insurance company is not acceptable. 16. For the reasons recorded above, aforesaid appeals are devoid of any merits and deserve dismissal and accordingly stand dismissed. R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. No order as to costs.