The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'goods' under Sec. 2(13) of the M.V. Act and its application to the case, which influenced the court's decision regarding the liability of the Insurance company.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The MFA No.101702/2016 is filed by the Insurance company challenging the liability and MFA Crob No.100162/2016 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation against the Judgment and award dtd. 4/4/2016 in MVC No.82/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Koppal.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant is that, on 31/10/2009 at about 3.00 p.m. she, her husband and her relatives were waiting for conveyance to go to the Tawargera to perform the Bandenawaz Urus with all their food grains, utensils and other peripherals. At that time, the offending vehicle came there and as per the instructions of the driver all of them boarded the vehicle along with their goods in the carrier. Since the petitioner was 7 months pregnant the petitioner sat in the cabin of the vehicle. When the vehicle was proceeding near K.E.B, office situated in Kankagiri, the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the door of the cabin got opened. As a result, the claimant fell down and left side rear wheel passed on her limbs, spinal card, etc., The claimant also sustained abdominal injuries. The claimant fractured multiple fractures on the left lower limb. Immediately, the claimant was admitted to Government Hospital, at Koppal. Thereafter the claimant was admitted to SDM Hospital at Dharwad for a period of three months. The left lower limb was amputated apart from other surgeries and she has suffered 100% disability and claimed the compensation.

4. The Insurance company appeared the contested the matter by filing the objection statement and it is contended that, the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability is also subject to the valid and effective driving licence and also it is contended that, the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying vehicle and the petitioner traveling in the vehicle is a unauthorized passenger and hence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The claimant in order to substantiate her case, she herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined other two witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.13 and on the other hand, the respondent examined two witnesses i.e. R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6.

5. The tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.6,42,370.00 and hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company contending that, the liability fastened on the Insurance company is erroneous. It is contended that, the vehicle is goods vehicle and the claimant has travelled as unauthorized passenger and the documents of criminal court records clearly discloses that they were waiting for boarding the vehicle and they have boarded the vehicle and an accident was occurred and hence, it is clear that, mere having the luggage with them cannot be termed as goods as defined under the Act under Sec. 2(13) of the M.V.Act and the Office of the Insurance company is also examined as R.W.1. The trial Court has committed an error in considering the document at Ex.P.6, P.11 and P.12 and even in spite of the same is considered, it shows that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, and that in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2, nowhere it is suggested to them that the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as gratuitous passenger, ignoring that it was suggested to P.W.1 that he had stopped the lorry by showing hand and they were travelling and in spite of all these materials were there, the tribunal has committed an error. It was also contended that in the mini lorry they were carrying 10-15 persons as against the seating capacity of only 3 including the driver and hence, the tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the Insurance c