JUDGMENT : Per Court :- The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2008, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Majalgaon, in Motor Accident Claim Petition (M.A.C.P.) No.35 of 2007, whereunder, the appellant – Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident – respondent No.2 herein, have been directed to pay jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of M.A.C.P. to the date of realisation of the said amount, towards compensation. 2. FACTS:- Respondent No.1 herein is the widow of deceased Kantaram, who died in an accident involving motor vehicle Mahindra Max pick-up van bearing No.MH-44-5260, on 12.03.2007. She, therefore, filed M.A.C.P. for compensation. It is her case that deceased Kantaram was on his way back to his village from Dharur in Mahindra pick-up van with foodgrains loaded bags therein. According to her, the deceased was a retailer in foodgrains. He would attend weekly Bazar for sale of foodgrains. On the fateful day, he had purchased two bags of Jawar from wholesaler and was on his way back home. Respondent No.3 – Vinod, was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner. While the vehicle was negotiating Jahangir Moha Ghat, the van turtled. Kantaram suffered multiple injuries and succumbed thereto. It is her further case that the deceased would earn Rs.4,500/- per month. He was 40 years of age. 3. The vehicle owner and its driver – respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed their written statement denying the averments in the claim petition. They, however, admitted that the deceased was travelling in ill-fated vehicle with his foodgrain bags. The appellant – Insurance Company came with a case that it was a goods carriage. The deceased was travelling therein as a fair paying passenger along with not less than 20 other persons. The appellant – Insurance Company has therefore no liability to pay compensation. 4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods, allowed the petition as stated above. 5. Shri M. K. Goyanka, learned Advocate took me through the F.I.R. (Exh.35) to contend that the deceased was travelling as a fare paying passenger. The appellant – Insurance Company has therefore no liability to pay compensation. 4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods, allowed the petition as stated above. 5. Shri M. K. Goyanka, learned Advocate took me through the F.I.R. (Exh.35) to contend that the deceased was travelling as a fare paying passenger. According to him, had he been travelling along with his goods, the spot panchanama would have revealed existence of the foodgrain bags in the vehicle involved in the accident. According to him, the vehicle was being used for the purpose other than its permitted use. As such, it is a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The learned Advocate would further submit that the claimant did not place on record the counter foil of the receipt whereunder the deceased had purchased foodgrains. The learned Advocate relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others – (2008) 1 SCC 423 . He, ultimately, urged for allowing the appeal. 6. Admittedly, the Mahindra Max pick-up van met with the accident on 12.03.2007. As a result of accident, deceased Kantaram suffered multiple injuries and ultimately died. It was admittedly a goods carriage. It had the insurance cover granted by the appellant – Insurance Company. Respondent No.3 herein was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time. It is in his evidence that he knew the deceased. The deceased purchased two bags of jawar at Dharur. He loaded those bags in the vehicle. The deceased was sitting next to him in the cabin in a capacity of owner of the bags being carried in the pick-up van. In the written statement as well, he has admitted that the deceased was travelling along with his goods. It is true that in the F.I.R., it has been averred that there were about 20 persons travelling in the pick-up van. The learned Advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company might be correct to submit that all those 20 persons travelling in the pick-up van, were the gratuitous passengers. The owner of the vehicle committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is, however, nobody’s case that presence of 20 persons in the ill-fated vehicle was a cause of the accident. The owner of the vehicle committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is, however, nobody’s case that presence of 20 persons in the ill-fated vehicle was a cause of the accident. None of those 20 persons are before this Court to claim compensation. True, that the scene of offence panchanama doesn’t indicate existence of the foodgrain bags in the vehicle. The bags were not more than two in number. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the Investigating Officer draws the site plan in furtherance of the investigation of the crime registered against the driver. It might have been a lapse on his part to make mention of the foodgrain bags, if any, in the site plan. 7. It is the consistent case of the claimant that the deceased was the retailer of foodgrains and was on his way home in the pick-up van. The driver of the van also admitted this fact. A receipt has also been placed on record to indicate the deceased to have had purchased the foodgrain bags on the given day. The appellant – Insurance Company did to disprove the claim of the claimant. The policy of insurance (Exh.54) disclosed that a sum of Rs.75/- was charged towards premium to cover the risk of non fare passengers. Furthermore, the law permits the owner or his representative to travel along with his goods in a goods carriage. The policy of insurance being comprehensive policy, covers the risk of the owner or representative of the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle. The reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cholleti (supra), would therefore, be of no avail to the appellant – Insurance Company. 8. In the result, the appeal fails. The same is dismissed. 9. Pending civil application is disposed of.