( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 387, 652, 692, 739, 740 and 741 of 2003.

( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that on 15. 4. 1998, the offending truck bearing registration no. MP 04-K 2938 met with an accident. Undisputedly, the offending truck was insured as goods vehicle with respondent no. 8, driven by respondent No. 7 and owned by the appellant on the relevant date. On account of the accident three persons, namely, Champalal, Raisingh and prabhulal died on the spot and a number of persons were injured. On account of accident, number of claim cases were filed. Two Claim Case Nos. 90 and 92 of 1998 were dismissed on account of no evidence. Case against the respondent No. 7 who was the driver, proceeded ex pane. The claim cases were contested by the appellant and the respondent No. 8 who are owner and insurance company respectively. In all the claim cases insurance company has been exonerated holding that respondent No. 8 is not liable for payment of compensation as the offending vehicle was insured for carrying the goods and respondent No. 7 and appellant has been held liable being the driver and owner. The details of claim cases in which appeals have been filed along with its corresponding appeal numbers and the amount awarded by Claims Tribunal are as under:

( 3. ) IN Claim Case No. 113 of 1998 which was filed on account of death of Champalal, a sum of Rs. 2,29,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, against which M. A. No. 387 of 2003 has been filed by the claimants who are represented by Mr. S. B. Shrungarpure and M. A. No. 692 of 2003 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, in Claim Case No. 114 of 1998 wherein a sum of Rs. 40,000 has been awarded to the claimant Bhaironsingh, an appeal has been filed by the claimant which has been numbered as m. A. No. 652 of 2003 and appeal filed by the owner has been numbered as m. A. No. 741 of 2003. Claimant Bhaironsingh is represented by Mr. M. R. Sheikh.

( 4. ) SO far as the owner-appellant is concerned, he has also filed appeals against the awards passed in Claim Case Nos. 86, 87 and 88 of 1998 of which respective appeal numbers are M. A. Nos. 739, 740 and 742 of 2003 and the amount of award in all the three cases are Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 1,57,000 and Rs. 1,66,600 respectively.

( 5. ) IN all the appeals which have been filed by owner-appellant herein, learned counsel Mr. Manish Jain submits that the respondent No. 8, insurance company has wrongly been exonerated. It is submitted that in Case No. 113 of 1998, the deceased champalal was a pedestrian and was not travelling in the offending vehicle. It is alleged that deceased Champalal was going with his nephew and was dashed by the offending vehicle. It is submitted that in evidence, the son of Champalal, Bhawarlal, aw 1, has appeared who has stated that he was told by his brother that deceased champalal was going on his foot. It is submitted that in the circumstances Champalal was not travelling in the offending vehicle, the respondent No. 8 has wrongly been exonerated.

( 6. ) MR. Manish Jain, learned counsel for appellant-owner of the offending vehicle further submits that the passengers were travelling in the offending vehicle along with their respective goods, therefore, in view of the amended proviso of section 147 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, respondent no. 8, the insurance company is liable for compensation and the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated.

( 7. ) IT is submitted that except M. A. Nos. 692 and 387 of 2003 which are arising out of Claim Case No. 113 of 1998, the claimants have alleged that the claimants were travelling in the vehicle along with goods. In view of this, the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation.

( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Indian r. C. C. Cement Pipe Industries v. Kalawati, 2001 (II) MPWN 191, wherein in a case where the deceased was tra