Whether carrying of "one or two bags of grains" in a goods vehicle will amount to "carrying of goods" is the question that is involved in this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts are to the effect that the deceased Eranna was found travelling in a lorry bearing No. AHT 6393 carrying "two bags" of pulses and jowar and the said lorry belonging to the respondent 7 herein dashed to a parked lorry bearing No. AT!' 1851 at about 5.00 a.m. near Sadashiv Pet on 6-8-1996. Following the said accident, the above said Eranna sustained injuries on his vital parts of the body and died on the spot. A case was registered against the driver of the lorry No. AHT 6393 for rash and negligent driving. The claim petition filed by the wife and children of the deceased Eranna came to be allowed by the. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Basavakalyan awarding a sum of Rs. 2,79,200/- as compensation and putting the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

3. I have heard the submissions made by Sri AM. Venkatesh, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and perused the record of this case.

4. Sri AM. Venkatesh, the learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the pleadings as well as the evidence on record submitted that, except in the oral testimony of P.W. 1, there is no evidence to indicate that the deceased was carrying goods in the lorry, in which he was travelling P.W. 1, Smt. Lalithabai, the wife of the deceased has deposed before the MACT that the deceased was found carrying one bag of jowar and one bag of tur to Hyderabad. Therefore, referring to the said oral evidence of P.W. 1, which is not backed up by the documentary evidence, in particular, the FIR-Exhibit P. 1 and the spot panchanama-Exhibit P. 4(A), it was submitted by the learned Counsel that carrying of one or two bags will not lead to the inference that what was carried was "goods" and therefore it establishes that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and as such, in the face of the insurance cover note being produced at Exhibit P. 4 to indicate that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company, particularly, in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision holding that the Company will not be liable when the gratuitous passengers are carried in a goods vehicle. In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Deddula Padmavathi and Others v Maddala Srinivasa Rao and Arwther1.

5. Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand submitted that, as it has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 that deceased was carrying two bags, it is obvious that what was carried by the deceased comes within the expression "goods" and as such, the Insurance Company is liable. It was further contended that if what was carried did not come within the expression "goods", the deceased would not have travelled by the goods vehicle and the very fact that he was travelling in a goods vehicle implies that he was travelling with the goods in the lorry in question. Therefore the Insurance Company is liable.

6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the short point that arises for consideration is whether it can be said that in the instant case, what was carried by the deceased comes within the expression "goods". This takes us at first to have a look at the definition of "goods" as contained in Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act'). The said section reads thus:

""Goods" includes livestock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include l