JUDGMENT : 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 14.01.2020 decided three claim petitions including the petitions titled, “Sobha Ram vs Bishamber Singh and others” and “Girdhari Lal vs Bishamber Singh and others. In claim petition, titled, “Girdhari Lal vs. Bishamber Singh and others”, the appellants being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,79,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization, whereas in claim petition, titled, “Sobha Ram vs Bishamber Singh and others”, the appellants have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,52,000/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. It needs to be mentioned here that by virtue of same award, the learned Tribunal also decided the third claim petition, titled, “Santosh Kumari and others vs Kewal Singh and others”, wherein the liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the insurance company. 2. The common award dated 14.01.2020 is the subject matter in the present appeals bearing Mac App No. 175/2020 and 176/2020. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as they were heard and considered together. 3. The appellants have impugned the award on the ground that both the claimants i.e. Sobha Ram and Girdhari Lal, petitioners in two separate claims petitions were travelling in a vehicle as owner of the goods (vegetables) and their risks were covered under the comprehensive policy issued by the respondent No. 1 and further that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error of law in deciding the issue No. 3 without considering section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act in its proper perspective. 4. Mr.Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that both Girdhari Lal and Sobha Ram were travelling in the vehicle along with their goods and as such, in terms of section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company was under obligation to satisfy the award as the insurance policy was a commercial vehicle package policy. 5. Per contra, Mr. 5. Per contra, Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal was correct in exonerating the respondent No. 1 from the liability to satisfy the award and the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and the insurance cover was taken only for third party and personal accidental cover for owner, driver, paid driver, conductor, cleaner employed and the owners of the goods were not covered under the Policy. Mr. Sarin also argued that even if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that there was liability of respondent No. 1 to satisfy the award for the injuries caused to the owner of the goods travelling in the vehicle, even in that eventuality, respondent No. 1 was under obligation to satisfy the award only in respect of one person travelling in the vehicle as the word “owner of the goods” has been mentioned in section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and “not owners. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. A perusal of both the claim petitions reveals that both the claimants i.e. Sobha Ram and Girdhari Lal on 08.10.2013 were travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. JK02BC 7396 along with their goods i.e. vegetables, the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which, both Sobha Ram and Girdhari Lal suffered serious injuries and one person, namely, Ajay Kumar died. Girdhari Lal and Sobha Ram along with representatives of deceased Ajay Kumar i.e. Santosh Kumari and others filed three separate claim petitions. The appellants as well as respondent No. 1/Insurance Company were put to notice. The appellant No. 1 though denied the accident because of the negligence of his driver but admitted that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the driver of one Matador bearing registration No. JK02V 2641. It was also stated by the appellant No. 1 that both Girdhari Lal and Sobha Ram had hired his vehicle for selling vegetables in Narwal Mandi, Jammu. The respondent No. 1/insurance company took a plea that the vehicle was carrying four passengers whereas sitting capacity was only one and as such, both claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. The respondent No. 1/insurance company took a plea that the vehicle was carrying four passengers whereas sitting capacity was only one and as such, both claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. “Whether an accident took place on 08.10.2013 near Sain Palace, Mishriwala, Jammu involving offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK02BC-7396 as a result of which petitioners Girdhari Lal and Sobha Ram suffered grievous injuries and deceased Ajay Kumar received fatal injuries. ....OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what ao0unt and from whom?......OPP 3. Whether there was any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy with respect of the vehicle No. JK02BC-7390 on the date of occurrence, if yes, what is its effect?......OPR-3 4. Relief? ........O. P. Parties” 8. After considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the claim petitions filed by petitioner-Sobha Ram and petitioner-Girdhari Lal were allowed, however, the responsibility to satisfy the award was placed upon the owner and the driver jointly i.e. the appellants herein by virtue of award dated 14.01.2020, which is impugned in the present appeals. 9. The issue raised by the appellants is that once the Tribunal had recorded a finding that both Girdhari Lal and Sobha Ram were travelling in the offending vehicle as owners of the goods, which admittedly was a commercial goods vehicle, so the responsibility to satisfy the award was required to be fastened upon the respondent No. 1/Insurance Company. 10. In order to appreciate the issue raised by the appellants, it is appropriate to take note of section 147 contained in Chapter-XI of “The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”, which begins with the heading-“Insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks” and the same is extracted as under: “Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 147 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. — (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 authorized 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; 11. In terms of section 147(supra), the policy of insurance must insure a person or class of persons against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in public place. The policy issued in favour of the appellant No. 1 by respondent No. 1 is goods vehicle policy. In view of the finding recorded by learned Tribunal that both Sobha Ram and Girdhari Lal were travelling in the offending vehicle along with their goods, it is obligatory on the part of respondent No. 1 to indemnify the insured in respect of the liability incurred by the insured being the owner of the offending vehicle in respect of injuries caused to the persons travelling in the commercial goods vehicle along with their goods. 12. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2001 ACJ 1565 , wherein it has been held as under: “8. Thus, this category of cases are also disposed of by declaring that compensation awarded in such cases where deceased or injured persons were travelling in a goods carriage who were owner or his authorised representative, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Any compensation or part of it not paid shall be paid to the claimant by the insurance company within eight weeks of this order. Any such amount withdrawn by the claimant which was deposited by the Insurance Company on furnishing security, such security stands discharged.” 13. Any compensation or part of it not paid shall be paid to the claimant by the insurance company within eight weeks of this order. Any such amount withdrawn by the claimant which was deposited by the Insurance Company on furnishing security, such security stands discharged.” 13. It was also contended by Mr. Amrit Sarin, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that in terms of section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability to satisfy the award can be placed upon the insurance company in respect of only one owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle, as the word “owner” has been mentioned in the section and not “owners”. In this context, it would be appropriate to take note of section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is reproduced as under: “13. Gender and number-In all (Central Acts) and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant is the subject or context- (1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and (2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.” 14. In terms of section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it is clear that the owner or his authorized representative shall also mean owners or their authorized representative(s). 15. It would also be appropriate to take note of Rule 113 of the J&K Motor Vehicles Rules, which is extracted as under: “113. Carriage of persons in goods vehicle.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle: Provided that, the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicles carried free of charge or a Police officer in uniform travelling on duty, may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried.- (i) In light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 980 kgs be not more than one. (ii) In any other light transport goods vehicle, not more than three. (iii) In any goods vehicle other than light transport vehicle, not more than seven: Provided further that the provisions of sub-clauses.....” 16. A perusal of Registration Certificate placed on record by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant reveals that un-laden weight of the vehicle is 1,115 kgs. (ii) In any other light transport goods vehicle, not more than three. (iii) In any goods vehicle other than light transport vehicle, not more than seven: Provided further that the provisions of sub-clauses.....” 16. A perusal of Registration Certificate placed on record by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant reveals that un-laden weight of the vehicle is 1,115 kgs. As per Rule 113(supra), the light transport goods vehicle having laden weight less than 980 Kg cannot carry more than one person, whereas in case of other light transport goods vehicle, up to 3 persons can be carried. Admittedly, the offending vehicle in question was a light transport vehicle having registered un-laden weight more than 980 kgs as such, the insurer is under obligation to indemnify the owner for as much as three persons carried in the goods vehicle along with their goods other than the driver. The claim in the present case is in respect of two persons only and the liability of the insurer is confined to two persons only. Thus, there is no force in the contention raised by Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel for the insurance company. 17. In view of all what has been said and discussed above, both the appeals are allowed and the award dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in both the claim petitions, titled, “Girdhari Lal vs Bishamber Singh and others” and “Sobha Ram vs. Bishamber Singh and others” is modified to the extent that it shall be the responsibility of respondent No. 1-Insurance Company to satisfy the award passed in both the aforesaid claim petitions. The amount deposited by the appellants in both the appeals as pre-requisite for filing the appeals, shall be released in their favour. 18. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.