JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Mandi, upon, Claim Petition No. 15/2015, as stood, cast therebefore, under, the provisions of Section 166, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (i) AND, whereunder, compensation amount, comprised in, a sum of Rs.17, 36, 912/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was, hence ordered to commence, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, rather stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, (ii) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant/insurer, has, not contested, the, validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, hence appertaining to the demise of Mansa Ram, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.6. The deceased, Mansa Ram, as visible, on a reading of, the, postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW2/A, begot his end, for the reasons as disclosed therein, (a) and, PW-2, who during the course of his examination-in-chief, hence tendered into evidence, the, postmortem report, and, also enabled its exhibition, and, his also obviously proving the afore exhibit, rather carries disclosures therein qua the afore cause of demise, being a sequel of a road side accident, (b) thereupon, it is to be concluded that the demise of the afore deceased, hence, germinating, from, rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by its owner-cum-driver. 3. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer, has contended, that (a) with the registration certificate appertaining to the offending vehicle, and, exhibited as Ex.RW1/C, and, it making a categorical echoing qua it being registered, rather as a light goods vehicle, (b) and, when it is construable, to be hence a goods carrier, thereupon, he contends (c) that when the claimants were hence enjoined to adduce cogent proof, vis-a-vis, the deceased, at the relevant time, occupying the offending vehicle not as a gratuitous passenger, rather as the owner, of the goods concerned, (d) whereas, with the FIR borne in Ex.PW3/A, not making any bespeaking in consonance therewith, thereupon, he contends that the deceased hence was travelling in the offending vehicle, as a gratuitous passenger, (e) and further thereonwards, he also makes, a, vehement espousal before this Court that, the, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle, hence, registered, as, a goods carrier vehicle, rather warranting interference, by this Court. 4. Primarily, even if, the FIR borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, lodged at the instance of one Rajinder Kumar, an,d not at the instance of the owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle, arrayed as co-respondent No.6 herein, though does not, carry, an, explicit narrative therein, vis-a-vis, at the time of happening, of, the ill-fated occurrence, hence involving the offending vehicle, driven at the relevant time, by it co-respondent No.6 herein, it not carrying therein any goods purportedly, rather owned by the predecessor-in-interest, of, the claimants, (a) yet the afore want, of, the afore echoings therein, would not beget a further concomitant conclusion, that, the afore argument(s) addressed, by the counsel for the insurer/appellant, is, weighty nor it can be concluded, that the deceased never hired, for the relevant purpose, the offending vehicle, nor it can be concluded, that, he was travelling as, a, gratuitous passenger therein. Contrarily, dehors, the afore narrative, and, also irrespective of the fact, that at the relevant time, the, goods owned by the deceased, were not borne, in the relevant vehicle, it would not relieve the insurer, vis-a-vis, the burdening of the apposite indemnificatory liability upon it, nor coax this Court to make a conclusion, that the afore indemnificatory liability, hence, saddled upon it, being unsaddleable, as a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Suresh K.K. and another, (2008) 12 SCC 657 , the relevant paragraph No.7 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- "7. A sum of Rs. 1,19,300/- was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest @ 9% pr annum. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court negatived the contention of the appellant that the word ''goods'' was used in Section of the Act, would not be referable to the word ''carried'' stating : "According to us, the language of the amended provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods or his representative who hires the vehicle travels in the hired vehicle from the place of hiring to the place where the goods are to be loaded into the vehicle and then proceeds to travel along with the goods. It is also common that after unloading the goods such passengers travel in the same vehicle to the place from where they commenced journey. The passenger does so and is allowed to do so in his capacity as the owner of the goods or his representative who has hired the vehicle for transporting goods. The amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word ''carried'' qualifies the owner of goods or his representative and not the goods carried. If goods are found inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, it is a clinching circumstance to establish that the passenger who claims to be the owner of goods or the owner''s representative was travelling in that capacity. Chances of passengers or the insured raising false claims in this regard cannot be safe method to ascertain the intention of the Legislature. False claims can be disapproved by appropriate contentions. Chances of passengers or the insured raising false claims in this regard cannot be safe method to ascertain the intention of the Legislature. False claims can be disapproved by appropriate contentions. In our view, such issues are matters of evidence and will not stand scrutiny while construing a beneficial provision intended to compensate the loss caused to innocent victims of motor accidents. The party who claims that the person representative of the owner of the goods shall discharge the burden cast on him. Merely for the reason that the benefit granted will be misused, it will not be proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above provision. We, therefore, hold that the owner or the authorised representative need not invariably be shown to accompany the goods at the time the goods carriage meets with accident causing injury to or resulting in the death of the passenger who is either the owner of the goods or the authorised representative of the owner of the goods." rather makes clear explicit, and, categorical expostulations of law, (a) qua passengers, hence, hiring the offending vehicle concerned, for goods being therein carried, along with them, conspicuously, also after, unloading the goods at their apposite destination, hence, proceeding to occupy, the hired apposite offending vehicle, for, theirs returning from, the apposite destination, whereupto they travelled, along with, the, goods, rather to travel to their place of abode, wherefrom they commenced their journey, (b) and conspicuously therein it also stands candidly and tritely expostulated therein, that, in the afore scenario, and, reiteratedly, when the offending vehicle, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the ill event of an accident, besetting it, rather not carrying goods, loaded therein, (c) and, the owner of the good(s), rather continuing to occupy, it, as a passenger therein, and, reiteratedly his occupation, as a passenger in the offending vehicle, continuing after his dispatching, the goods, loaded in the offending vehicle, at their apt destination, hence being facilitative, for, his returning home, (d) rather would yet enjoin(s) the courts of law, to, fasten the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, (e) but the relevant discharging onus, especially for avoiding the misuse of the afore expostulation of law, being always cast, upon, the claimants concerned. Succinctly, the claimants, whereuponwhom, the apposite discharging onus, is cast, do appear through Sakina Devi, to ensure its apposite discharging,(f) given the afore during the course of recording of her deposition, tendering in her examination-in-chief, her affidavit, borne in Ex.PW1/A, exhibit whereof carries, articulation(s) qua deceased Mansa Ram, upon, engaging the offending vehicle, for carrying therein "patals", upto Trambel village, and, also after his completing the journey, in the offending vehicle, along with the afore bundles of patals, being loaded therein, rather, his, after delivering the afore patals at Trambel, (f) hence thereafter also continuing to occupy the offending vehicle, as passenger, for hence his being enabled to arrive, at the place of commencement of his journey. Reiteratedly, the afore despoition also falls, within the expostulation of law, encapsulated, in the judgment (supra), hence, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, in the impugned award, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, does not suffer, from any fallacy nor hence the deceased, is, construable to be a gratuitous passengers, in the offending vehilce. 5. However, the learned counsel, appearing for the insurer/appellant herein, has continued to contend with much vigour, before this Court that with respondent No.6 herein, in his testification, embodied in his cross-examination, acquiescing to an affirmative suggestion put to him, by the counsel for the insurer qua the deceased, hence, occupying the offending vehicle merely as a passenger, (a) hence, he concerts, to, therefrom hence generate an inference, that the deceased was throughout rather occupying the offending vehicle, as, a gratuitous passenger, and, hence, the apposite indemnificatory liability, being not amenable, to be fastened, upon, the insurer. However, the afore inference, as strived to be drawn, by the counsel for the insurer, is, misplaced, and, misfounded, (b) as it appears, that, the afore suggestion appertains, vis-a-vis, the stage rather when the relevant mishap occurred, and, does not, hence enable him to therefrom, make or derive any inference, that the deceased had never engaged the offending vehicle for carrying therein, the bundles of patals, (c) nor qua after the delivery of the afore at Trambel, hence, he was not returning in the offending vehicle, for his being facilitated, to arrive at his homestead, (d) nor he can thereupon, obviously erode, the afore expostulation, of law, as borne in Suresh K.K.''s case (supra), rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, (e) wherein rather the travelling, of, the owner concerned, without the goods occurring, in the offending vehicle, especially when prior thereto, he has delivered the goods, at their relevant destination, rather purveys apt leverage, to the registered owner, to make, an, espousal, that, the indemnificatory liability being fastenable upon the insurer. (f) Furthermore, the afore inference, also stands filliped, from, RW-1 acquiescing to a suggestion meted to him, by the counsel for the insurer, while subjecting to cross-examination, that, his, rearing a claim, vis-a-vis, damages caused to the vehicle, before the insurance company, (g) and, when thereto visibly no objection stood raised by the insurer, (h) thereupon, upon, the afore suggestion standing combined with, and, read in conjunction, with the claim form, occurring at page 46 of the record of the learned tribunal, wherein, there occurs, an echoing hence in consonance, with the afore testification rendered by PW-1, (i) and, it also squarely and pointedly echoing qua respondent No.1, after unloading, at the apt destination concerned, hence, the goods of the deceased Mansa Ram, his thereafter performing his return journey, rather in the offending vehilce, (j) and, during the course thereof, the ill-fated mishap hence involving the offending vehicle occurring, rather fortifies an inference, qua the afore expostulation of law, borne in the judgment (supra) hence being standing satisfactorily satiated, and, also hence, the relevant discharging onus, cast upon the claimants, being discharged. 6. 6. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has, contended with much vigour, before this Court, that the afore echoing occurring in the claim form, and, claim form whereof exists at page 46, of the record of the learned tribunal, hence, being readable, as, carrying, a signification qua the offending vehicle, being engaged, by deceased Mansa Ram, to carry therein, his household luggage, or personal effects, and, he hence contends (a) that when the afore luggage or personal effects, of the deceased Mansa Ram, as stood carried, in the offending vehicle, when rather stand excluded, from the statutory definition, of goods, encapsulated in Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "S. 2(13) "goods" includes livestock, and, anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle), carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle:" (a) thereupon also it being invincibly concludable, that the patals, as stood, carried in the offending vehicle rather being luggage and, the personal effects, of, the deceased. He also makes a further submission, that, the apposite indemnificatory liability hence being not tenably saddled upon the insurer. However, the afore submission, cannot be accepted by this Court, as, the echoing made in the claim form, existing at page 46 of the records, of the learned tribunal, is, qua bundles of patals being carried, in the offending vehicle concerned, prior to the ill-fated mishap, rather happening, (b) and thereafter with no further explanation , is, concerted to be elicited from RW-1, by the counsel for the insurer, during, the course of his holding him, to cross-examination, vis-a-vis, patals not being carried, in the offending vehicle, at the relevant stage, rather household luggage or personal effects, of, the deceased, being carried at the relevant stage, in the offending vehicle, (c) and, when only upon the afore endeavour being made, it may be possible, to rear a conclusion that hence no patals rather other house hold items or personal effects of the deceased, rather at the relevant time, being carried in the offending vehicle. (d) Reiteratedly, when the afore elicitation, is not concerted, to be unearthed from RW-1, (e) thereupon, it is to be also concluded qua the counsel for the insurer, of the offending vehicle acquiescing qua the patals, being carried, at the relevant stage in the offending vehicle, (e) thereupon, it is to be concluded that the afore patals, obviously not being construable to be either luggage or personal effects of the deceased, rather being construable, to be goods, as, defined under Section 2(13) of the Act, emphatically when the "patals" are not meant, for, the permanent personal use, vis-a-vis, consignee nor, vis-a-vis, the consignor, nor are personal effects or luggage rather are meant, for, community users. Corollary thereof, is that the fastening, of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, by the learned tribunal, does not suffer, from, any infirmity. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the award impugned before this Court is maintained, and, affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.