JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The matter comes upon for confirmation of the stay. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment & award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No.184/2016. 4. Briefly facts of the case are that on 11.06.2011 at around 08:00 P.M. deceased Devilal along with his wife went for purchasing the Fodder in Loading Tempo bearing registration No. RJ22-G.A.-1871. At around 8.30 p.m., when they reached in front of the Mill-Gate, the Tempo in which they were travelling met with an accident and overturned. Due to the said incident, Devilal sustained grievious injuries and was taken to the Bangur Hospital, Pali from where he was referred to Mathura Das Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur. During treatment Devilal died. 5. In these circumstances, the appellants preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pali being Motor Accident Claim Case No.184/2016 for grant of compensation. The reply was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the issues. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs.8,26,000/- in favour of the appellants and directed the respondents to pay an interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded on filing of the application i.e. 26.10.2016. 7. I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and award. 8. The counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there is nothing on record which shows that the Fodder belonged to the deceased Devilal as there is no receipt for the purchase of the Fodder. He further submits that there is no documentary evidence which is placed on record for hiring the offending vehicle in question for transportation of the Fodder. He further submits that deceased was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle which was only meant for the transportation of goods and the risk, therefore, was not covered for the persons who are travelling as unauthorized persons. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. 9. He further submits that deceased was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle which was only meant for the transportation of goods and the risk, therefore, was not covered for the persons who are travelling as unauthorized persons. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that it has categorically come on record that the Fodder which was purchased by the deceased and his wife was being taken along in the tempo and since they were travelling in the offending vehicle along with goods, therefore, in view of the provisions under Section 147 (1)(b)(i) the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation in the present case. 10. He further submits that the fact of the Fodder being purchased and taken along with deceased person has been proved before the Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. Having considered the rival submissions, I have examined the order impugned. 12. There is a categorical finding with respect to the Fodder being taken by the deceased in the Loading Tempo i.e. an offending vehicle and while taking the same and while travelling the deceased as the owner of the goods have sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. In view of the provisions under Section 147 (1)(b)(i) which reads as under :- "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (b). Insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in subsection (2)- (i). against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;" 13. The Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of a person if the owner of the goods is travelling along with the goods in the vehicle. 14. The Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of a person if the owner of the goods is travelling along with the goods in the vehicle. 14. I further find that the Tribunal has elaborately considered the submissions made and decided issue No.2 in favour of the claimants. 15. In view of whatever stated as above, there is no infirmity in the judgment & order passed by the Tribunal hence, no interference is called for. The appeal thus has no force and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 16. Since the appeal itself has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed.