JUDGMENT : MFA Nos.22558/2011, 22065/12 and MFA No.24601/12 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened on the Insurance Company. 2. Undisputed facts in this case are that 12 persons have travelled in the mini lorry on 26.01.2009 at 5.30 am for making paddy into rice in the mill and after converting the paddy into rice and while returning in the same mini lorry, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in high speed and rash and negligent manner and caused accident. Due to which one person died and two persons have sustained injuries. Therefore, injured claimants and legal representatives of deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act for claiming compensation and Tribunal has awarded compensation by fastening the liability on the appellant-insurance company. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the quantity of paddy is taken for making it as rice is only 80 Kgs and vehicle used is a mini lorry and therefore, the claimants and deceased have not travelled in the mini lorry along with goods and also cannot be treated as an authorized representative of goods. Therefore, submitted that these are gratuitous passengers in the lorry. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation by indemnifying the owner and hence prays to saddle the liability on the mini lorry driver to pay compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and owner of the lorry have justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 6. In the complaint and FIR, it is stated that there are totally 12 persons who have travelled in the said mini lorry for converting paddy into rice and after making rice from the paddy and while returning so met with accident and one of the person travelled in the lorry died in the accident and others have sustained injuries. 7. The vehicle used is mini lorry. In order to attract Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there must be proof that the person travelled in the goods carriage vehicle is either as owner of the goods or as an authorized representative of owner of goods. Here, as per Ex.P6, which is a receipt issued by the owner of mill, 80kgs paddy was converted into rice. Here, as per Ex.P6, which is a receipt issued by the owner of mill, 80kgs paddy was converted into rice. There were 12 persons travelling in the mini lorry. It cannot be certainly said that 12 persons are authorized representative of 80Kgs rice or owner of the 80 Kgs rice. Three claim petitions are filed. Two are by injured claimants and one is by legal heirs of the deceased. Even these three persons cannot be said that they have travelled in the said mini lorry along with 80 Kgs of rice being owner or authorized representative of owner of the said 80 Kgs rice. Compared to mini lorry and quantity of rice carried is only 80 Kgs and this disproportionate material certainly prove the fact that the claimants and deceased cannot be said that they have travelled along with the goods. What is ‘goods’ is defined under Section 2(13) of MV Act, 1988. Therefore, it is highly unbelievable that twelve persons have travelled in the goods carriage as owner or authorized representative of goods of 80 Kgs rice. Therefore, Section 2(13) of MV Act, 1988 reads as follows. “Section 2(13) in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (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;” 8. Section 147(1)(b)(i) of M.V. Act reads as follows: “(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily 27 [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;” 9. Therefore, upon combined reading of Section 2(13) and Section 147(1)(b)(i) of M.V. Act, 1988, in order to cover the risk in respect of owner of the goods or authorized representative of the owner of the goods means the goods vehicle must be loaded substantially and the persons who travelled must be either owner or authorized representative of goods of such substantial goods in the goods carriage vehicle. Mere carrying one or two bags of commodities cannot be said that they are goods transported along with the owner of goods within the meaning of above said provisions. Only 80 Kgs of paddy made it as rice. Considering this quantity of goods, it cannot be said that twelve persons have travelled being owner or authorized representative of owner of goods so as to cover the risk as per Section 147 of M.V. Act as stated above. 10. Therefore, claimants and deceased have travelled in the said goods lorry as gratuitous passengers but not along with the goods either being owner or being authorized representative of owner of the goods so as to cover within the meaning of Section 2(13) and Section 147(1)(b)(i) of MV Act, 1988. Therefore, the owner shall pay the compensation. Hence, Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claimants since there is breach of conditions of policy is proved. Hence, appeals are liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Appeals are allowed. ii) Judgment and award dated 19.11.2010 passed in MVC No.9/2010 by I Addl. MACT, Karwar is modified that the liability fixed on the appellant-Insurance company is set aside and the liability is fixed on the owner of the mini lorry. iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the Insurance company. iv) No order as to costs. v) Draw decree accordingly.