Manjunath, J.

This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the liability fixed by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC 2701/1997.

2. Claim petition was filed by the widow and minor children of one Kalaiah who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 7.7.1997 at about 1-30 p.m. near Mathikere on Bangalore-Mysore Road. Kalaiah was a vegetable vendor. In order to secure vegetables to his shop in the village, by hiring a tempo bearing No.KA 05-9401 Kalaiah was proceeding in the tempo which met with an accident and died in the hospital on 12.7.1997.

3. According to the claimants, deceased as a vegetable vendor was earning a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month and that he was aged about 40 years on the date of death. The claim petition was not contested by the owner of the vehicle. On an application filed under Sec.170 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insurance company sought permission to defend the case and the permission was granted to the insurance company by the tribunal.

4. Insurance company filed objections to the claim petition contending that though policy has been issued by the company since deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, liability cannot be saddled on the Company and requested the court to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance company.

5. Widow of the deceased was examined as PW-1, eye witness was examined as PW-2, claimants relied upon Exs.P-l to 8. On behalf of the appellant insurance company, one witness was examined as RW-l and the insurance policy was marked as EX.R-1.

6. The tribunal, considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,09,148/- which is inclusive of loss of dependency, medical expenses and compensation under the head loss of estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Considering the policy issued by the insurance company, liability has been fixed on the company. Challenging the judgment and award, present appeal is filed.

7. According to the counsel for the appellant, tribunal has committed a serious error in fixing the liability on the appellant even though deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and such liability was not covered under the policy. Alternatively, he contends that the compensation awarded is on higher side since tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 14 and also erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month.

8. According to the counsel for the respondent/claimant that the tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company since deceased was travelling in the tempo in question by hiring the tempo only to transport vegetables to his shop and the counsel for the claimants further submits since insurance company has collected premium under the head ‘Non-fair Paying Passengers’, liability has been covered and therefore he requests the court to dismiss the appeal.

9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, following points would arise for the consideration of this court in this appeal:

1. If a goods vehicle is engaged by a person and was travelling in the vehicle in order to secure goods to be transported and if such vehicle met with an accident, whether the liability has to be fixed on the insurance company?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on higher side.

10. The Learned Counsel for the appellant relying upon Section 147 of the Act contends that the deceased Kalaiah was not travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods, therefore, such a risk was not covered. Section 147 of the Act, which reads as hereunder:

“ Requirements of Policies and Limites 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 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 i