The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the death of individuals traveling in a transport vehicle, based on their status as owners of the goods or non-fare paying passengers, as outlined in the Policy conditions and IMT 37.

1. These two Appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company. By consent of the parties, both the Appeals are taken together as it arises out of the same accident and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In the First Appeal (CMA. No.317 of 2006), the Insurance Company is aggrieved against the grant of award of compensation to the deceased on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

3. According to the Claimants in C.M.A. No.317 of 2006 arises out of M.C.O.P. NO.1715 of 2003 the deceased Javid Basha was traveling in the tempo van along with the chicken, as the owner of the goods and when the vehicle met with an accident, he died. They would claim that since the deceased traveled in the vehicle as a owner, accompanying the goods in a transport vehicle, as per the Policy condition, owner is covered by the Policy and for his death the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

4. The Insurance company has come forward with this Appeal questioning their liability on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that Javid Basha was the owner of the goods. In the absence of any evidence to show that Javid Basha was the owner of the goods, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. According to the insurance Company the deceased ought not to have trave3lled in the goods vehicle as an employee of the owner of the goods and therefore the Insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability.

5. As far as the second case (C.M.A. No.778 of 2008) is concerned, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the Appeal against the award granted in favour of the Claimants for death of their son Palani who was also traveling in the transport vehicle on the ground that he was neither owner of the vehicle nor the goods. Whereas, the lower Court has considered him as Collie which is not the case put forward by the Claimants and therefore, the award granted to them under law is not liable to be paid by the Insurance Company.

6. The learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants in both the Appeals would only contend that as far as C.M.A. No.317 of 2006, which arose clue to the death of Javid Basha is concerned, he would very clearly state that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, that the deceased was traveling as the owner of the chick and hen. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically stated that he has advanced money as the parent of the deceased to conduct the chick and hen business and the lower Court also has categorically given a finding that in so far as deceased Javid Basha is concerned, he is the owner of the goods. The driver was examined in both the cases. He would also contend that in the vehicle, only these two persons died and only two claims are made and as per the Policy both the owners will be covered. In any view of the matter even if any one of them is not construed as the owner, in the policy there is a coverage for non-fare paying passenger for which premium has been paid for one person, so that would also cover the other deceased. It is also further made clear by them that atleast he was traveling in the vehicle either as owner or representative of the owner of the goods for the up-keep or the maintenance of the goods. Even if he is treated as Coolie, since premium is specifically paid for Coolie upto 7 members, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, in both the cases the Claimants would only contend that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Especially in C.M.A. No.778 of 2008, though the lower Court did not accept the theory of ownership and concluded that the decease as a Coolie as well as for non-fare paying passenger, definitely, in both the Appeals, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

7. Heard both parties. The short point for consideration in both the Appeals are whether the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect o