S. Sujatha, J. - The insurer is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC Nos. 609 and 776 of 2010 and 1614 of 2008, whereas the claimant has filed appeal against the judgment and order in MVC No. 609 of 2010.

2. Since all these matters arise out of the same accident, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Briefly stated the facts are:

That the claimants instituted petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident which occurred on 3-5-2008 while travelling in a goods vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-24/A-2929 (offending vehicle) along with their goods. It was contended that the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer contested the claim. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded compensation fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability as well as the quantum in the three cases referred to above whereas the claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation as the quantum of compensation awarded being inadequate in MVC No. 609 of 2010.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the insurer would refer to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) which runs thus:

"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) ........

(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 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."

The learned Counsel would contend that in terms of Section 147(1) of the Act, only one owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle to entitled for the compensation. The word owner cannot be read as 'owners' of the goods. In other words, the learned Counsel submits that the intention of the Legislature in amending Section 147(1) of the Act by Act by Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994 is in much as the sole owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle to be covered under the statutory policy. No multiple number of owners carrying with their goods travelling in the goods vehicle are entitled for compensation as per the statutory policy issued under Section 147(1) of the Act.

5. Secondly, the learned Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti Bharatamma, (2008) 1 SCC 423 would contend that seven persons were travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident out of which three persons claimed compensation. The permitted seating capacity of the offending vehicle was only three including the driver and the cleaner and only one non-fare paying passenger as owner of goods was entitled to travel in a cabin and the claimants travelled in the offending vehicle beyond the seating capacity contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Thus, the Tribunal grossly erred in fastening the liability on the insurer sans the appreciation of this vital aspect.

6. Thirdly, it was contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimants and the same requires to the reduced considering the material evidence on record.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimant in MVC No. 609 of 2010 would contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The quantum of