Whether a person travelling in a goods. vehicle without the goods being carried by him can be brought within the expression "owner of the goods" under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('1988 Act' for short) and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable, is the question that calls for an answer in this appeal.

2. The facts briefly stated are to the effect that one Mohammed Isaac travelled in the lorry bearing No. KA-20/2911 with fish boxes and the journey started from Sagar and after unloading the fish boxes at Bhadravathi, the vehicle was returning to Sagar and the said Mohammed Isaac travelled back in the said lorry. On the way near Kone Hosur, on account of the driver of the lorry losing control of the vehicle, the accident occurred and the lorry fell upside down. Mohammed Isaac and other passengers who were in the lorry sustained injuries and Mohammed Isaac died subsequently. The claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased Mohammed Isaac was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar, quantifying the compensation at Rs. 2,18,000/-. The liability was put on the appellant-Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

3. The main contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Sowri Raju is that at the time when the accident occurred, the deceased was found travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle and not as a owner of the goods and therefore, no liability will fall on the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, therefore, was totally in error in putting the liability on the appellant to satisfy the award in respect of the claim made by the mother of the deceased. The question of Insurance Company becoming liable in respect of a person travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle does not arise. Hence, the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, insofar as putting the liability on the appellant has to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant Sri Chidambaram for Sri R. Gopal contended that a plain reading of Section 147 of the 1988 Act will go to show that the policy must cover the risk of liability in respect of any injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle and therefore, it is very clear from the expression "including owner of the goods" that the section does not contemplate the owner to necessarily travel in the vehicle with the goods. He also placed reliance on Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to submit that even under the said Rule, the owner or hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle may be carried in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that in the instant case, although the deceased had unloaded the fish boxes at Bhadravathi, he was returning in the same vehicle towards Sagar and therefore, it will have to be deemed that the deceased was travelling back as owner of the goods and therefore, the liability put on the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is just and proper and in accordance with the above provision of law.

5. In the light of the contentions urged as above, the question for consideration is, whether in the instant case, deceased Mohammed Isaac can be deemed to have travelled in the lorry at the time of accident as owner of the goods?

6. The facts which are not in dispute as could be seen from the material on record are; more particularly in view of the evidence of P.W.1 who is the claimant before the Tribunal; that the deceased had travelled in the lorry along with fish boxes and after unloading them at Bhadravathi, the deceased was returning in the said vehicle and the accident occurred at about 2 p.m. Therefore, there is no doubt as to the deceased having been found travelling in the lorry in question at the time of accident without the 'goods'. Even in the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased had hired the v