JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Deshpande Nagar, Hubballi and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.11.2016 passed in MVC No.901/2015 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi have filed these appeals. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 24.05.2013 at 4.00 p.m. deceased was going in a TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.K.A.25/Schedule 6400 taking mangoes to Kalaghatagi. Respondent No.2 was diving the vehicle, and near Janaga Cross, on Haliyal-Kalaghatagi road he drover the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and resulted in throwing the deceased out of the vehicle. Deceased sustained multiple injuries and he was admitted to KIMS hospital, Hubbali and later on 26.05.2013 he succumbed to the injuries. The claimant has stated that the deceased Hobappa @ Obappa is her brother and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing business of selling fruits. The claimant is unmarried and was depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Due to the demise of her brother, she has lost her livelihood. Therefore, she claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal and respondent No.1 filed the written statement, denied the contention of the claimant, that the accident has occurred as stated in the petition. It is stated that there is no nexus between fall and injuries sustained by the deceased. Further, contended that the deceased was in drunken state and due to his negligence he fell from the vehicle. His vehicle is insured with respondent No.2. Hence, in case of liability, it may be saddled against him. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, denied that the accident occurred as contended by the claimant and death of the deceased and also the dependency of the deceased. Further, contended that the deceased Obappa was traveling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passenger. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. Per contra, the respondent No.2 Insurance Company got examined its witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. Per contra, the respondent No.2 Insurance Company got examined its witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.8,60,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.2 being the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 5. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed MFA No.101332/2017 on the grounds that the tribunal failed to draw proper presumption, since the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger. It is made out from the record that the owner of the goods vehicle by name Smt. Somalavva Lamani was also traveling in the said vehicle along with goods. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having D.L. to drive LMV NT vehicle and thereby there is violation of permit of the policy conditions and amounts to breach of policy conditions. 6. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA.Crob. No.100104/2017 on the ground that the tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. though the deceased was doing fruits business and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Further the tribunal has awarded compensation under other heads on lower side. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimant has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, there is a breach of policy condition and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the owner of the goods was also traveling in the said vehicle. Sitting capacity of the said vehicle is two and that the risk of the coolie is not covered under the policy Ex.R.2. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the owner of the goods was also traveling in the said vehicle. Sitting capacity of the said vehicle is two and that the risk of the coolie is not covered under the policy Ex.R.2. Therefore, the deceased cannot be held as owner of the goods though the owner of the goods is relative of the deceased. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the deceased was engaged as a coolie to assist the owner of the goods namely Somalavva for loading and unloading 15 gunny bags of mangoes, as she is a woman and relative of the deceased. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and should have awarded 50% of the income towards future prospects. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment in the case of M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mohandas S/o Ratnappa Lamani and another, in MFA No.7267/2008 and connected with two other matters decided by this Court on 19.11.2015, submitted that there cannot be two or more owners of the goods traveling in the goods vehicle. In the present case, the evidence produced by the claimant goes to show that the Complainant Smt. Somalavva was transporting 15 gunny bags containing mangoes in the offending goods Auto rickshaw and it is clearly stated that she requested the deceased, who is her sister's son to load and unload the goods and after loading the mangoes, the deceased and herself were traveling in the said vehicle. In the case stated supra, this Court while considering Section 1471(b) (i) of the MV Act, 1988 held that only one person including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carrying in the vehicle, can seek compensation against the insurer. Therefore, it is held under Section 147 of the MV. Act that insurer can not be made liable to satisfy the award. In the case stated supra Ratnappa was the owner of the goods and his wife and son were also traveling. Under those circumstances, this Court held that all the three claimants cannot be construed as owners of the goods. Act that insurer can not be made liable to satisfy the award. In the case stated supra Ratnappa was the owner of the goods and his wife and son were also traveling. Under those circumstances, this Court held that all the three claimants cannot be construed as owners of the goods. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 and contents of EX.P.1 complaint goes to show that the owner of the goods Smt. Somlavva B. Lamani, aged about 45 years old, engaged the deceased Obalappa son of her own sister for loading and unloading 15 gunny bags containing mangoes. Therefore, it has to be held that the deceased was traveling in the said goods vehicle for the purpose of loading and unloading. Therefore, whether the risk of coolie or person engaged for loading and unloading of the goods is covered under the policy or there is any statutory liability on the insurer to pay the compensation to such coolie or loader has to be considered. 14. Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Sri. Maruthi and others, (2011) ILR(Kar) 4139 considered this aspect and has observed in para 31 of the judgment as follows: 31. By reading Sections 147 and 149, it is clear that the Legislative intent was that the insurer has to compulsorily cover all the risks arising out of and use of motor vehicle and the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of insured. However, this is subject to the limitations envisaged under Section 147(1) (b). It is also clear that the coolies who are employees carried in a goods vehicle are to be compulsorily covered under Section 147(1) (b). 15. Further in para 37 this Court has held as under: 37. "XXX When the intention of the Legislation was to cover compulsorily all the risk arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and that the liability of the insured is co-extensive with that of the insured subject to Section 147(1) (b), coolies or employees are compulsorily covered. 15. Further in para 37 this Court has held as under: 37. "XXX When the intention of the Legislation was to cover compulsorily all the risk arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and that the liability of the insured is co-extensive with that of the insured subject to Section 147(1) (b), coolies or employees are compulsorily covered. Therefore, the argument that Rule 100(6) r/w Rule 226 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules is relevant is rejected and the same will not authorize or permit the insurer to avoid the liability." This Court after having referred the decision has come to the conclusion that the intention of the legislature was to cover compulsorily all the risk arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and that the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of the insured and therefore, the coolie or employees are compulsorily covered under the policy and the argument that Rule 100(6) R/w Rule 226 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules is relevant is rejected and the same will not authorize or permit the insurer to avoid the liability. Therefore, in the present case, this Court holds that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle for the purpose of loading and unloading goods. It is clearly made out from the contents of the complaint that the deceased himself loaded the mangoes bags into the vehicle. Therefore, there is statutory liability on the insurer to cover the risk of the coolie or person engaged for loading or unloading in a goods vehicle as held in the decision stated supra. 16. It is also not disputed that the Ex.R.2 policy was in force and it covers the risk of two persons. Admittedly, there is only one claim arising out of the said accident. Under these circumstances of the case, it is held that the deceased was not traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle. But, he was traveling as loader and un-loader on the request of the owner of the goods. Therefore, the insurer cannot avoid his liability to pay compensation. Thus, the appellant insurer has not made out any grounds for setting aside the liability saddled against him. But, he was traveling as loader and un-loader on the request of the owner of the goods. Therefore, the insurer cannot avoid his liability to pay compensation. Thus, the appellant insurer has not made out any grounds for setting aside the liability saddled against him. The contention of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding LMV NT and therefore, there is breach of policy condition cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mukund Dewangan V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed. 17. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the enhancement of the compensation is necessary on the grounds of considering the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and awarding 50% towards future prospects. It is contended by the claimant before the tribunal that the deceased was doing business of selling fruits and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. However, the claimant has not produced any positive evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, for the purpose of awarding compensation. Considering age of the deceased, his avocation and that the accident occurred in the year 2013 and as per the guidelines provided for settlement of cases before the Lok-Adalath, it is just and necessary to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month for the purpose of awarding compensation. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700, the claimant is also entitle for additional 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, in addition to compensation on conventional heads. Thus considering the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and addition of 50% towards future prospects which comes to Rs.3,500/-. The total comes to Rs.10,500/-. Since, the deceased was bachelor 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,250/-, which has to be multiplied by 12 and 18 and therefore, a sum of Rs.11,34,000/- is awarded towards loss of dependency (5250 x 12 x 18=) Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,250/-, which has to be multiplied by 12 and 18 and therefore, a sum of Rs.11,34,000/- is awarded towards loss of dependency (5250 x 12 x 18=) Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- as against compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.8,60,000/-. Therefore, the claimant-appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,04,000/-. Hence, the point for consideration in this regard is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.101332/2017 is dismissed and MFA Crob. 100104/2017 is allowed in part. The claimant-appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The amount of compensation deposited by the insurer in MFA.No.101332/2017 shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal. Further, the insurer is directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks. The order with regard to deposit and disbursement shall be in terms of the order passed by the tribunal. Send the records to the concerned tribunal.