JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The owner of the goods tempo being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 17.03.2010 passed in MVC No.482/2008 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belgaum has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 10.12.2007 at about 8.30 hours the deceased and the claimant and other petitioners were proceeding in 407 tempo bearing No.K.A.- 24/4190 along with vegetables by loading the same at Ghataprabha towards Badami . When the said vehicle came near Ramdurga-Madakavi Road, the driver of the vehicle driving the said vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and lost control over vehicle, thereby the vehicle turtled resulting in the death of one inmate and injuries to the other inmates. The petitioner in MVC.No.482/2008 has stated that he was aged about 38 years and was working as cleaner and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as daily bata and now due to the injuries sustained in the accident he has become disabled and unable to do any work. Therefore, the LRs. of the deceased and the injured claimants filed four claim petitions in MVC.No.480, 481, 482, 483 of 2008 against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. All the claim petitions were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded and were disposed of by the common judgment. 3. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 2 insurer appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. He has denied the averments made in the claim petition. He has further denied that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries that they have not spent money for the treatment and that they have become disable to do any kind of work. The compensation claimed is exorbitant. He has also denied the manner in which the accident occurred. The liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of policy. The tempo being light goods vehicle, the sitting capacity was only three inclusive of driver and one more employee. Hence, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. Hence, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant and one witness was examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.20. Per contra, the respondent No.2 Insurance Company got examined its official witness as R.W.1 and produced the insurance policy at Ex.R.1. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.5,26,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Further, the tribunal has directed respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days and respondent No.2 insurer was exonerated. 5. The owner of the offending vehicle being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal on the grounds that tribunal has fixed the liability on the appellant-owner of the vehicle erroneously, there is no violation of policy conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The tribunal ought to have considered that the vehicle had insurance policy at the time of the accident and entire liability ought to have been fixed on the Insurance Company only. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 7. The short question which arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the owner-appellant has made out grounds to saddle the liability to pay compensation on the insurer. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that out of the accident four claim petitions were filed and this is the only claim petition which arises on the death of the deceased, and other claim petitions were made by the injured for compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that insurance policy at Ex.R.1 covered the risk of three plus one more employee and therefore, the risk of the deceased and other claimants are clearly covered under the said policy. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. The learned counsel further submitted that insurance policy at Ex.R.1 covered the risk of three plus one more employee and therefore, the risk of the deceased and other claimants are clearly covered under the said policy. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Anjana Shyam, 2007 8 LAWS(SC) 51 and submitted that in case of claims more than permissible under the policy are made, the insurer has to satisfy the highest award and that out of the four claim petitions, the compensation awarded in the present case is the highest award and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. 9. Per contra the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was traveling as unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that the claimants are not aggrieved by the impugned award and they have not filed any appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is not maintainable. 10. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the present case is a goods vehicle. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased and other petitioners were traveling in the said goods vehicle along with vegetables, which was loaded at Ghataprabha towards Badami. Therefore, it is the contention of the claimant that the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle along with the goods as owner of the goods. Further, the policy issued in respect of offending vehicle produced at Ex.R.1 goes to show that the risk of the driver and the others, and total sitting capacity including the driver is shown as two, it was submitted that Ex.R.1 the policy cover the risk of three plus one more employee. It is also not disputed that out of the said accident four claim petitions were filed before the tribunal in MVC.Nos.480, 481, 482, 483 of 2008 out of these claim petitions, this is the only claim petition i.e. MVC.No.482/2008 filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Ashok Doddakuri and the other three claim petitions were filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.3,000/- in other three claim petitions and only in this claim petition the compensation of Rs.5,26,500/- is awarded and therefore, this is the highest award amount among the four claim petitions. The learned counsel for the appellant owner has relied on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Anjana Shyam stated supra, in para 8 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 8. XXXX It would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. XXX Further, in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the insurer only to satisfy the judgment and award against the persons injured in respect of the persons whose risk is covered by the policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where various awards out of the same accident arise, the insurer is bound to cover the higher amount of the compensation awarded in the claim petition to the extent of number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. In the present case, the insurer bound to satisfy this award and the remaining awards have to be satisfied by the owner of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. LTd., V/s. Keludappa,2005 12 LAWS(KAR) 5, para 3 reads as under. 3. The fact that the vehicle cannot be used as a taxi may attract punishment for the owner and driver under the Motor Vehicles Act and other allied enactment, but it is not a ground to exonerate the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation. When the insurer has covered the risk of an inmate of a private vehicle, it makes little difference whether the inmate is the fare paying passenger or gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the insurer in the present case cannot escape from the liability to satisfy the highest award. When the insurer has covered the risk of an inmate of a private vehicle, it makes little difference whether the inmate is the fare paying passenger or gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the insurer in the present case cannot escape from the liability to satisfy the highest award. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the appellant owner of the offending vehicle has made out grounds to saddle liability to pay compensation on the insurer and that the impugned judgment and award saddling the liability on the owner is liable to be set aside. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The is allowed. The judgment and award dated 17.03.2010 passed in MVC.No.482/2008 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belgaum so far as saddling the liability on the appellant owner of the goods vehicle and exonerating the insurer is set aside. It is ordered that both the owner and the insurer are liable to satisfy the award in MVC.No.482/2008. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before the tribunal within eight weeks. The amount of compensation, if any deposited in the appeal shall be refunded to the appellant. Send the records to the concerned tribunal.