JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18/5/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,82,580/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 6/12/2014. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants - parents of one Rajesh Dan and his siblings with the averments that Rajesh Dan was travelling in truck No. RJ-19-GA-1614 from Jaisalmer to Chandhan along with grocery goods of his employer when the truck being driven by Aadam Khan rashly and negligently turned turtle, resulting in grievous injuries to Rajesh Dan to which he succumbed. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,37,000/-. 3. The application was contested by owner-driver of the truck with the averments that the accident occurred on account of the fact that suddenly an animal came on the road and accident did not occur on account of any negligence by the driver of the truck. It was claimed that the vehicle was insured and the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Insurance Company contested its liability by indicating that only two persons could sit in the truck, however, at the time of accident four persons were travelling and as such the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger and on account of violation of policy condition the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of claimants two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited, on behalf of Insurance Company one witness was examined and the insurance policy was exhibited. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck, which resulted in death of Rajesh Dan. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum wages and awarded the compensation, as noticed hereinbefore. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck, which resulted in death of Rajesh Dan. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased based on minimum wages and awarded the compensation, as noticed hereinbefore. 6. While deciding the aspect of liability of Insurance Company, it was found that the deceased was travelling as a representative of the owner of the goods and relying on the provisions of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act, 1988'), the Tribunal held that in view of express provision of law, the liability of such a person was covered under the policy and Insurance Company was liable to make payment of compensation. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling as a representative of the owner of the goods. It was submitted that there was no material on record for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion pertaining to the status of the deceased as representative of owner of the goods. 8. Further submissions were made that as persons more than the permitted capacity were sitting in the truck, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for making payment of compensation and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Submissions were also made that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation and, therefore, the same deserves modification. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 11. It was the specific case of the claimants in the application that the deceased was travelling in the truck as a representative of owner of the goods i.e. M/s Komal Traders. The said aspect is also fortified from the First Information Report, wherein, also it was specifically indicated that the deceased was travelling as representative of owner of the goods. During the course of cross examination of Manager of the Insurance Company, it was accepted that no inquiry was held pertaining to the status of the deceased as to whether he was travelling as a representative of owner of the goods or not. 12. During the course of cross examination of Manager of the Insurance Company, it was accepted that no inquiry was held pertaining to the status of the deceased as to whether he was travelling as a representative of owner of the goods or not. 12. In view of above fact situation, wherein, the case of the claimants from the point of time the FIR was lodged, the application for compensation was filed and evidence was led was quite specific regarding the status in which the deceased was travelling and the Insurance Company chose not to make any inquiry in this regard except for questioning the status of the deceased in its written statement, the finding of the Tribunal regarding status of the deceased cannot be faulted. Merely because persons more than the permitted capacity were travelling in the truck, cannot absolve the appellant Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. 13. Once it is found as a fact that deceased was travelling as a representative of owner of the goods being carried in the truck, in view of express provision of Section 147 of the Act, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 14. So far as the submission pertaining to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded compensation based on minimum wages only, which amount cannot be said to be excessive so as to require interference in the present appeal. 15. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.