JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. As all these appeals are against the judgment and order dated 09.4.2012, rendered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal, so are being adjudicated herein below by this single verdict. 2. At the outset, it would be pertinent to make it clear that the award was passed granting the compensation to Shri Bhag Chandra Singh and others as well as Shri Hem Singh and others, who are the respective husbands/children of the deceased Smt. Prabha Devi and Smt. Sureshi Devi. These two young women, running in their mid thirties, lost their life in an accident occurred on 05.12.2005 at around 12:00 noon while they were travelling/sitting in the vehicle no. UP-06-3006. This vehicle was meant for goods carriage having the capacity of three persons to be accommodated in its cabin. The vehicle was being plied on the tardy serpentine hilly roads of District Pauri Garhwal, which on account of developing some mechanical defect/steering locking skidded up from the road and fell down in the deep ditch causing such accident. The FIR whereof was soon lodged on the same day at around 1:30 PM in the outpost of revenue office. 3. Mr. Bhag Chandra Singh presented the claim petition seeking the compensation to the tune of more than Rs. 25 lakhs, where against the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,46,000/- along with the 9 percent interest from the date of passing such award. In case of Shri Hem Singh, a claim of more than Rs. 17 lakhs was asked, where against the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,19,000/- along with the same rate of interest as evinced above. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the quantum of the respective awards, hence they have preferred the appeal no. 334/2012 and 348/2012 for the enhancement of the same, while Shri Naresh Gusain, the ostensible owner of the vehicle in question and Shri Mukesh Chandra Kukreti, the driver of the same, preferred the AO Nos. 255/2012 and 256/2012 respectively because the liability has been fastened upon them jointly and severely by the learned Tribunal. 4. The vehicle was covered under the insurance, but such insurance was only for the own damage as well as third party and driver-cum-owner. Meaning thereby, it was not comprehensive in nature. 255/2012 and 256/2012 respectively because the liability has been fastened upon them jointly and severely by the learned Tribunal. 4. The vehicle was covered under the insurance, but such insurance was only for the own damage as well as third party and driver-cum-owner. Meaning thereby, it was not comprehensive in nature. The permit was also for goods vehicle and at one time it could have carried three quintal weight as a luggage. The premise, which has been the basis for fastening the liability upon the driver and owner, is that the vehicle was the goods carriage in nature, and not passenger vehicle and these ladies among others were travelling in the gratuitous capacity. 5. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel of the owner/driver that these ladies were sitting in the vehicle at the relevant time along with the fodder, which they had collected for their respective animals because they used to do the milk business and one Smt. Prabha Devi had booked such vehicle for the freight charges inasmuch as Rs. 400/-. 6. In this regard, the learned counsels of either party have drawn the attention towards the statements of the driver as well as owner of the vehicle. I find that the statements of both these persons in chief-examination and cross-examination are quite contrary to each other and the Court disbelieves that. Otherwise also, in the hilly roads there is no practice that these illiterate rustic women might have been doing such business of milk sale as they were constant to hire a vehicle to carry their animal fodder, which is no more than a grass, which they have collected from the jungle. So, this theory of booking the vehicle and sitting in such vehicle as an owner of the goods is quite disapproved by this Court. 7. In opinion of the Court, they were simply the gratuitous passengers and that too in the goods vehicle and it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bala Krishnan and Another (2013) 1 SCC 731 that such passenger is entitled for compensation only in the case when the policy is comprehensive in nature and he was travelling in the passenger vehicle not in the goods vehicle. 8. 8. The learned counsel on behalf of the driver/owner has also raised an alternate plea that these ladies were the third party under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This third party theory in such matters has also been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prema Devi and Others (2008) 5 SCC 403 , wherein relying on the proposition, which was laid in the case of Vedwati (2007) 9 SCC 486 , it was held that the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation in case of death or injury to gratuitous passengers travelling in goods carriage cannot be sustained. It is open to the claimant to recover the amount awarded from the owners of the offending vehicles. 9. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in the AO Nos. 255/2012 and 256/2012 preferred by the owner and driver respectively and these are liable to be dismissed. 10. As regard to the enhancement of the compensation, which the descendants have preferred, I find that both these ladies were quite rustic in their living standards inasmuch as they were simply homely ladies collecting grass and fodder from the jungle for their few animals at home. So, measurement of the compensation at the base value of notional income is more than higher because for such ladies even the notional income cannot be taken as a standard income because their basic function is not to earn the money, but to perform all household chores in their respective house and looking after their families. All the claimants were not solely dependant upon their income and the object of the Act is to award just and appropriate compensation. 11. As regards the rate of interest, I think the 9 percent is higher. Interest at the rate of 6 percent shall be exigible on all the money, but from the date of institution of petition and not from the date of the impugned judgment. 12. With the observations/modifications, as have been herein stated before, the AO Nos. 334/2012 and 348/2012 are also dismissed. 13. Lower court records be sent back.