THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA NO.718 OF 2007 Dated 23rd February, 2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited …Appellant And R.Laxmamma and three others …Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri E.Venugopal Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 6th October, 2006 in O.P No.3085 of 2004 on the file of II- Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,97,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as compensation for the death of one Kondaiah, the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondents 2 and 3. At the hearing, the only point argued by Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, is that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was travelling in a tractor-trailer sitting on the top of the paddy bags. The Tribunal has considered this contention raised on behalf of the appellant and held that the judgments in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum[1] and National Insurance Company Limited v. Chinnamma[2], pertain to the accidents, which occurred prior to the amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) brought into force in the year 1994 and that by the said amendment, the insurance covering the risk of the owner of the goods carried in a goods vehicle is made compulsory. The learned counsel, however, submitted that a perusal of Ex.A1-first information report shows that the deceased along with six others were carrying their paddy and that having regard to the low quantity of the paddy, the same shall be considered as luggage but not as ‘goods’. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the deceased and six others were taking their paddy in the trailer attached to the tractor for milling purpose. This is not a case, where the deceased had intercepted the tractor on the way and travelled in the trailer along with his personal luggage. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the goods which were being carried by the deceased in the tractor-trailer in question attracts the definition of ‘goods’ contained in Section 2(13) of the Act. Admittedly, the owner of the goods is covered by the policy in terms of the provisions of the Act and also the policy itself after the 1994 amendment. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the award of the Tribunal. The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd February, 2010 vrn [1] (2004) 8 SCC 667 [2] (2004) 8 SCC 697