JUDGMENT : R. THARANI, J.:— Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.A.C.O.P. No. 10 of 2007 dated 20.03.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Virudhunagar. 3. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company and the respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants and the 6th respondent herein is the first respondent in the claim petition. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed a claim petition in M.A.C.O.P. No. 10 of 2007 seeking for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). 4. The case of the claimants is that on 07.11.2006, at about 11.30 a.m., one Krishnasamy purchased 13 goats from Manargudi market and loaded them in TN-60-C-4869 mini door vehicle and when the vehicle was passing along the Thanjavur - Pudukottai road, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and capsized the vehicle. Krishnasamy was admitted in the medical college hospital and took treatment till 14.11.2006 and then he died. He was earning Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month through goat business and he got Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) through his agriculture work. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was claimed as a compensation. 5. The case of the sixth respondent herein is as follows: The claimants has to prove the age, income and profession of the deceased. The accident was unexpected. The vehicle was insured with the insurance company/appellant and the insurance company/appellant alone is liable to pay the compensation. 6. The case of the insurance company/appellant is as follows: The claimants are liable to prove the age, income and profession of the deceased. The claimants are not third parties. The insurance company/appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The vehicle is a commercial vehicle. Only two persons can travel along the drivers but in the vehicle which was met with the accident, more than three persons travelled. The livestock is not goods. The deceased is a gracious passenger. The policy conditions are violated and the insurance company/appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the Insurance Company/appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. The livestock is not goods. The deceased is a gracious passenger. The policy conditions are violated and the insurance company/appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the Insurance Company/appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the good carriage vehicle is a LMP mini door vehicle. The deceased was travelling along the goats and not travelled in the cabin, which is contrary to the provisions of law. Three persons travelled as gracious passengers. The owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of permit. The deceased Krishnasamy travelled not as the owner of the goats but only as a gracious passenger. 9. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the goods are livestock. The deceased was the owner of the goods. Livestock is to be accompanied by a person to prevent them from jumping out and that the above pleadings was not raised in the counter filed by the insurance company/appellant. As per Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, goods includes the livestock and a person includes the owner of the goods. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manjula v. M. Sakthivel reported in (2019) 2 TN MAC 188, wherein it is stated as follows: “Owner of goods, even if travelled in backside of van alongwith goods as contended, entitled to claim compensation - order of exonerating insurer, set aside.” 11. It is seen that the insurance company/appellant has not raised these points at the earlier instance. But only in the additional counter, the insurance company/appellant questioned the liability. The Tribunal has given a findings that the deceased travelled only as the owner of the goods. 12. It is also seen that the insurance company/appellant did not raise a question regarding the travelling of the deceased with the livestock the in the counter. As per the aforesaid citation, the owner of the goods can travel in the goods carrier. The goods includes livestock as per Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. 13. In the above circumstances, as a special case, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. As per the aforesaid citation, the owner of the goods can travel in the goods carrier. The goods includes livestock as per Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. 13. In the above circumstances, as a special case, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award of the Tribunal Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only). 14. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The appellant is directed to deposit the above said amount if not deposited earlier, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal and after deducting any amount received by them earlier. The excess amount if any deposited shall be refunded to the appellant. No Costs.