JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 27.03.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.301/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioner/claimant for the death of a she-buffalo of the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.90,000/-on account of the death of a she-buffalo of the petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.01.2006. 4. The facts show that on 03.01.2006 the petitioner purchased a she-buffalo for Rs.35,000/-. The same was brought grazing by the petitioner at Telephone Nagar on 24.01.2006 at about 02.30 p.m., when the driver of the 1st respondent’s offending vehicle bearing No.AP16 T 4759, drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, came towards left side of the road margin, dashed against the she-buffalo of petitioner, ran over, resulting in the death of the she-buffalo. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.4/2006 for the offence punishable U/s.279 of Indian Penal Code was registered. The said she-buffalo was aged 7 years, giving 5 to 6 litres milk per a day, and after the accident, the petitioner spent Rs.6,000/-for medical expenses, Rs.1,000/-for transport and Rs.4,000/-for feeding of its calf, and lost a permanent income of Rs.90,000/-. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent in the petition filed a counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on part of the driver of the crime lorry, and the petitioner had to prove that he was the owner of the cattle, and there was no contractual liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/lorry bearing No.AP 16T 4759? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation? If so, from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 7. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/lorry bearing No.AP 16T 4759? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation? If so, from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as 2nd P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, D.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 9. The plea of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the petitioner had to prove that he was the owner of the cattle, and there was no contractual liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. 10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. 11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded an amount of Rs.45,000/-as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 12. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation beyond Rs.6,000/-, and the order of the Tribunal is against section 147 of M.V.Act 1988, since the said provision limits the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.6,000/-only for the damage caused to livestock. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.6,000/-only, in view of section 147 (2) (b) of M.V.Act, 1988. 14. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.6,000/-only, in view of section 147 (2) (b) of M.V.Act, 1988. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that in the case on hand, the livestock is a she-buffalo, and the crime vehicle dashed the livestock due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, when the livestock was grazing on the left side of road margin, and section 2 (13) of M.V.Act, 1988 speaks that the rules include livestock of anything carried by a vehicle, and in the case on hand, livestock i.e., she-buffalo died in the accident was not carried by any vehicle at the time of accident, and as such, section 147 (2) (b) of M.V.Act 1988, has no application to the facts of the case on hand, and therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, in awarding compensation beyond Rs.6,000/-. 15. In the light of the above rival contentions, the point for consideration is: “Whether the definition of ‘property’ U/s.2 (13) of M.V.Act, 1988 is applicable to the she-buffalo in the case on hand? If so, whether the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company is limited to Rs.6,000/-only as per section 147 (2) (b) of M.V.Act, 1988?” 16. POINT: The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.01.2006 the claimant brought grazing the she-buffalo on the left side of the road margin near Telephone Nagar, Janardhanapuram village, and at about 02.30 p.m., the driver of the crime vehicle drove the lorry bearing No.AP 16T 1459 in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the she-buffalo, and as a result, the she-buffalo died, and police registered a case in Cr.No.4/2006 for the offence punishable U/s.279 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said lorry, and the she-buffalo was aged 7 years, and was giving 5 to 6 litres of milk per day, and the claimant spent around Rs.6,000/-for medical expenses, Rs.1,000/-for transportation and Rs.4,000/-for feeding of calf, and the claimant also lost permanent income of Rs.90,000/-in view of the death of a healthy she-buffalo. The appellant/Insurance Company denied the case of the claimant. 17. The appellant/Insurance Company denied the case of the claimant. 17. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of the claimant, who was examined as P.W-1, and the documents filed for the claimant under Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of post mortem report and Ex.A-3 copy of police report (charge sheet), as no contra evidence was adduced for the appellant/Insurance Company, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy shows that the crime vehicle was having insurance at the time of accident, and the appellant/Insurance Company was the insurer of the crime vehicle. 18. The above facts and circumstances establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and he dashed the she-buffalo when it was grazing on the left side of the road margin. 19. Section 2 (13) of M.V.Act, 1988 is as follows: (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. 20. Therefore, as per the definition of ‘goods’ as noted above, livestock carried in a motor vehicle would fall within the definition of 'property'. Further, the word ‘property’ under Section 147 (2) (b) of the M.V. Act, 1988, has to be viewed in the light of the above inference made on the scope of ‘goods’ under Section 2 (13) of the M.V. Act, 1988. 21. Section 147 (2) of the M.V. Act, 1988 is as follows: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:— (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. 22. 22. The definition of ‘goods’ stated supra indicates that the livestock, and anything carried in the motor vehicle and thereby it constitutes as property. However in the case on hand, the she-buffalo that died was not carried in the motor vehicle at the time of accident. In that view of the matter the she-buffalo cannot be considered as ‘property’ under the scope of Section 147 (2) (b) of the M.V. Act, 1988, to limit the liability only upto Rs. 6,000/-. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant relied on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, rep. by its Deputy Manager Vs. Kallappa Channappa Hanchimani, 2006 ACJ 1533 , which held in para 8 as follows: “As per the definition of 'property' as noted above, goods carried in the motor vehicle also constitute the definition of 'property'. For that it is to be noted that these bullocks are not bullocks being carried in the motor vehicle and another aspect, namely, in the definition itself, it is referred to 'property' that is being also carried on the roads, bridges, culverts, cause ways, trees posts and milestones. The definition of 'property' is exhaustive which is defined in the Concise Law Dictionary refers to every species of property and further it is noted at pages 680 & 681 of the Concise Law Dictionary that the word is a generic term for all that a person has domain over and however, may be the bullocks are treated as the property of a man in the literal sense but for all practical purposes the animals are to be treated as having its own existence, it cannot be treated as if it is an object. The bullocks have to be treated as a living being on par with the human being and placing the liability on the insurer instead of treating the same as either as object or any other movable or immovable property. I am of the considered opinion that these bullocks cannot be exhaustively treated as mere property for purposes of Section 147(2)(b). Of course, in this context the bullock cart purely falls within the definition of the property in view of the fact that the policy is said to be an 'Act Policy' with limited liability on the insurer to the extent of only Rs. 6,000/-although the amount of Rs. Of course, in this context the bullock cart purely falls within the definition of the property in view of the fact that the policy is said to be an 'Act Policy' with limited liability on the insurer to the extent of only Rs. 6,000/-although the amount of Rs. 15,000/-has been awarded towards damages and another Rs. 3,000/-as idle charges.” 24. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, I do not find any merits in the contentions of the Appellant to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and therefore, the point is answered against the appellant/Insurance Company. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order dated 07.03.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.301/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.