JUDGMENT : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. MFA Nos. 22651, 22652 and 22656 of 2009: In these three appeals, the Insurance Company is challenging the award passed by the Tribunal by which a sum of Rs.7,500/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively has been awarded. Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly states that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. As the above amounts awarded by the Tribunal is the subject matter of dispute in these appeals, the appeals would clearly not be maintainable. Accordingly, the above said appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. MFA Nos.22650, 22653, 22654 and 22655 of 2009:- The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the compensation awarded in respect of the claimants herein by which a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.40,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- have been awarded. 2. MFA No.22650/2009 is filed challenging the award of Rs. 1,80,000/- granted to the parents of deceased boy aged 08 years. 3. MFA No.22653/2009 is filed challenging the award of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of Renuka aged 25 years in respect of the injuries sustained by her. 4. MFA No.22654/2009 is filed challenging the award of Rs.40,500/- granted in favour of Mallappa. 5. MFA No.22655/2009 is filed challenging the award of Rs. 10,000/- granted in favour of Hanumant Yallappa Halagali. 6. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are as follows: A total of seven claims were filed before the Tribunal in which it was contended that the claimants were doing coolie work and had been to Amadalli village of Karwar District along with their children to do coolie work i.e. to cut Akesha trees and when they were returning to their village in order to celebrate Ugadi festival, all of them were having their goods and household articles. On that day, they hired the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/B-2728 at Mastikatta village along with household articles and goods. It was stated that while they were traveling in the said vehicle, the driver who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner lost control of the vehicle near Jogikoppa Cross on Karwar-Ballari National Highway and he hit roadside electric pole and then a tree. It was stated that the claimants had been thrown out from the vehicle, as a result of which they had sustained grievous injuries. It was stated that the claimants had been thrown out from the vehicle, as a result of which they had sustained grievous injuries. It was stated that Kenchappa son of Hanumant Yallappa Halagali and Smt.Renuka Hanumanta Halagali (respondents in MFA No.22650/2009) sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. 7. The claimants claimed compensation for the death of a boy and also for the respective injuries sustained by them. 8. The 1st respondent owner entered appearance and denied the claim averments. He, however admitted the accident and also stated that the parents of the deceased boy and the parents were returning in the vehicle in question along with household articles. He denied the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. He also stated that his vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent and if it was to be held that he was liable on the claimants, the 2nd respondent was to be saddled with the said liability. 9. The Insurance Company entered appearance and contested the petitions. Apart from denying the petition averments, they contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was not only insured with it, but the same was a goods carrying vehicle and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the vehicle was permitted to carry only goods and the carriage of passengers was not permitted. It was stated that as per the police papers, the claimants were found to be traveling in the goods vehicle as unauthorized passengers which amounted to breach of policy/permit conditions and hence, they could not be made liable to pay any compensation and the claim against them should be dismissed. 10. The Tribunal framed six issues. 11. The Tribunal after considering the material on record produced before it came to the conclusion that an accident had in fact occurred on 30.03.2006 near Jogikoppa Cross on Karwar-Ballari National Highway, which involved the Truck bearing No.KA-25/B-2728 and the said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck by its driver. 12. The Tribunal also added that the accident had resulted in the death of Kenchappa, an 8 year old boy and the other claimants had also sustained injuries. 13. 12. The Tribunal also added that the accident had resulted in the death of Kenchappa, an 8 year old boy and the other claimants had also sustained injuries. 13. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation since it had been proved that the claimants had been traveling in the goods vehicle along with their goods and the Insurance Company had not let in any evidence to prove their contention that the claimants were unauthorized passengers. 14. The Tribunal held that apart from cross-examining the claimants or driver of the Truck, no independent evidence had been let in by the Insurance Company to disprove the claim of the claimants. The Tribunal found on examining the facts of the case before it that the claimants had established that they were transporting their goods i.e. bags containing jawar along with household articles and they had agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- as charges of transportation and as a consequence they were owners of the goods who were traveling in the vehicle and they could not be considered as unauthorized passengers. 15. The Tribunal also gave a finding that the deceased boy and the claimant in MVC No. 138/2007 were minor children and that they were traveling with their parents in the Truck and therefore, the compensation payable for the death and injury of those minor children would also have to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. 16. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company assailed the said findings of the Tribunal and contended that, admittedly, as the vehicle in question was a goods carrying vehicle and since such vehicles were not permitted to carry passengers, the claimants would have to be held to be unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle and the Insurance Company would not be liable to cover the liability in respect of unauthorized passengers. 17. The learned counsel did not assail the finding regarding the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck or the quantum of compensation. 18. The learned counsel further contended that it is well settled law that the liability of the Insurance Company was only in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods vehicle and since Section 147 provided for only a single representative to travel along with the goods. 18. The learned counsel further contended that it is well settled law that the liability of the Insurance Company was only in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods vehicle and since Section 147 provided for only a single representative to travel along with the goods. The Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the compensation in respect of the seven passengers. 19. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Others vs. Shivasharanappa and Others, 2012 ACJ 98 . 20. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned award and contended that the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence had come to the clear conclusion that the claimants were traveling as owners of goods in the vehicle and they were not unauthorized passengers and this finding of the Tribunal being supported by cogent evidence did not call for any interference. 21. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and in my view the finding of the Tribunal does not warrant interference for the following reasons. 22. The plea put forth by the claimants was that they were traveling in the Lorry along with their goods i.e. bags of jawar and wheat and also along with their household articles. In other words, they set up a plea that they were traveling in the Lorry as owner of the goods. 23. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the Insurance Company had issued a package policy in respect of the Lorry in question. 24. The R.C. book and the permit were produced by the Insurance Company which were exhibited as Ex.R2 and R3. From the R.C. book, it can be seen that the carrying capacity of the vehicle was 3+1 i.e. 4 (including driver) and the unladen weight of the Truck was 8470 kgs. The goods carriage permit also indicates that the loading capacity of the Lorry was 16,530 kgs. and its laden weight of 25,000 kgs. 25. The Insurance policy in question i.e. the package policy indicates there was coverage for coolies, paid driver, conductor and cleaner and the owner had paid an additional premium of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- respectively. 26. The goods carriage permit also indicates that the loading capacity of the Lorry was 16,530 kgs. and its laden weight of 25,000 kgs. 25. The Insurance policy in question i.e. the package policy indicates there was coverage for coolies, paid driver, conductor and cleaner and the owner had paid an additional premium of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- respectively. 26. It is to be stated here that under the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, carriage of persons in goods vehicle is prohibited under Rule 100. However, the proviso to the said Rule carves out an exception and states that the owner or hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle could be carried free of charge in the goods vehicle and the total number of persons so carried in respect of any goods vehicle should not be more than seven if the vehicle was a goods vehicle. 27. Thus, under the Rules, the Lorry in question being a goods vehicle could carry up to seven persons, provided they were either the owners or hirers of the vehicle and they could also travel in the said vehicle free of charge. 28. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral evidence of both the claimants and the owner of the Truck has come to the conclusion that the claimants were traveling along with their goods and therefore, the liability arising out of an accident to them would have to be met by the Insurance Company. 29. The Tribunal has stated that since the Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence to establish their plea that the claimants were unauthorized passengers, the oral evidence adduced by the claimants would have to be accepted. 30. In my view this reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be found fault that since the Tribunal has applied its mind and on consideration of the totality of the circumstances, has given a clear finding that the claimants were traveling as owners of the goods as they had hired the vehicle to transport their bags of jawar and wheat. 31. The contention of the Insurance Company that seven people could not be considered as owner of goods and that the provision only enabled one person to be a owner of the goods does not merit acceptance. 32. The Lorry in question having carrying capacity more than 16,530 kgs. 31. The contention of the Insurance Company that seven people could not be considered as owner of goods and that the provision only enabled one person to be a owner of the goods does not merit acceptance. 32. The Lorry in question having carrying capacity more than 16,530 kgs. cannot be expected to be hired by only one owner and it is permissible for the Lorry owner to accept transportation of goods of from more than one owner. In this view of the matter, the contention of the Insurance Company that multiple owners of goods cannot be covered by the Insurance Company is unacceptable. 33. It is to be stated here that it is not uncommon in our country for a Group of people to hire a goods vehicle for transporting their goods and such section of people also travel from place to place along with their children. 34. It is to be stated here that a group of seven which included two minor children, by itself, would lead to the inference that they were either fare paying passengers or that they were unauthorized passengers. 35. In law when an Insurance Company puts forth the plea of exclusion of its liability, the burden is upon the Insurance Company to prove the exclusion of liability as a result of a breach of the policy and they cannot contend that the pleas of the claimant themselves be taken as proof of the breach leading to the exclusion of their liability. 36. The reliance placed by the learned also does not deserve acceptance. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that the Insurance Company is not required to cover the liability of an unauthorized or gratuitous passengers. In judgments relied upon by the learned counsel, this proposition has been reiterated. 37. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has, on analysis of the evidence adduced before it, has given a clear finding that the claimants were traveling in the goods vehicle as owner of goods and since admittedly the Insurance Company is liable to cover the liability arising out of the death or bodily injury of the owners of the goods in a goods vehicle. The said decisions have no application to the facts of the case. 38. The said decisions have no application to the facts of the case. 38. In view of the above, I am of the view that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. 39. It is also to be noticed that the awards made in these set of claims is small sums of money, which did not really merit the filing of appeals by the Insurance Company. Barring the claim for the death of the 8 year old boy, the sums awarded are insufficient to warrant the filing of the appeals. 40. In view of the above foregoing reasons, I am of the view that these appeals devoid of merits and same are dismissed. 41. The amount in deposit shall stand transmit to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award.