HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3624 OF 2000 Dated: 23.03.2010 BETWEEN Narava lakshmi and others .. Appellants And Pulagam Katamswamy and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3624 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the Judgment, dated 26.11.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry in M.V.O.P.No.425 of 2000. 2. The deceased traveled as owner of the goods in the lorry bearing No. AAK 3632, the Tribunal held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. As against the claim of Rs.2,25,000/-, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,78,088/- as compensation. In this appeal, the appellants assailed the findings with regard to the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and also the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is inadequate and that it is not just and reasonable. 3. I have heard Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-insurance company. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellants examined the wife of the deceased as PW.1 besides examining One Mitta Vishnu as PW.2, who is the cleaner in the lorry bearing No.AAK 3632, which was involved in the accident on 14.03.1995. To prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and also to establish that the deceased Baburao alias Veeracharyulu was traveling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods. PW.2 had categorically stated in his evidence before the Tribunal below that on the date of accident he was traveling in the lorry and the first respondent was driving the lorry He further deposed that the deceased was an agriculturist and the deceased took the lorry bearing No. AAK 3632 belonging to the respondent No.4 for the purpose of transporting sago of 30 bags. The deceased was in the lorry at relevant point of time. PW.2 and the deceased were sitting in the cabin of the lorry while the sago load was being transported to Sago Factory, Peddapuram and that the lorry turned turtle at about 1.00 PM while it was on the way to sago factory, due to which the deceased died on the spot. The deceased died instantaneously while he was in the lorry itself, that he and respondent No.1 sustained injuries. 5. PW-2 was cross examined to the effect that the deceased was traveling only as passenger in the lorry, he denied the suggestion that in order to help him he was deposing false. The evidence of PW.2 in regard to the above mentioned aspect remained unshattered and no useful material was elicited in the cross examination. Furthermore, RW.1 who was looking after the legal matters of the third respondent –insurance company stated in his evidence that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the liability of the insurance company is only against the third party, driver, cleaner and loading and unloading coolies ‘6’ in number, and there is no liability for the owner of the goods traveling in the lorry and as per the terms of Ex.B.1-policy of insurance, respondent No.3-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. He further stated that they calculated the premium only to the extent of liability at Rs.1275/- and no additional premium was collected in respect of the liability of the owner traveling in the lorry. In the cross-examination he had specifically stated that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the deceased, who traveled in the vehicle as owner of the goods. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1, it may be noticed that there is positive admission from the said witness that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as owner of the goods. 6. The policy is an Act policy. After amendment made to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act which came into force with effect from 14.11.1994. Subsection (1)(b)(i) of the said proviso reads as follows: 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 authorized 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. 7. Thus, from the explicit language of Section 147 substituted by Act 54 of 1994 instead of the injuries to any person the words injuries to any person including the owner of the vehicle or his authorized legal representatives carried in the vehicle were substituted. Thus, when once it is established that the policy is an Act policy and the deceased in fact, was traveling in the goods vehicle along with his goods as owner of the goods, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased or to the injured persons as the case may be and the learned Tribunal has committed error in arriving at the conclusion that though the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle as the owner of the goods his liability is not covered as per provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said finding is therefore, set aside in this appeal and it is held in this appeal that the third respondent – insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and consequently liable to pay compensation to the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased. 8. The next question to be dealt with is about quantum of compensation. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants made his submissions regarding the selection of multiplier wrongly by the Tribunal below. According to him, the appropriate multiplier is not ‘11 ‘. As per the decision in SARALA VERMA (Smt) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased who was 44 years is ‘14’. If the annual loss of dependency arrived at Rs.16,008/- is multiplied with 14, the amount works out to Rs.16,008/- x 14 = Rs.2,24,112/-. In addition to this amount, the appellants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant, who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all the appellants are entitled for Rs.2,44,112/- as compensation. The enhancement therefore, would be Rs.66,024/- (Rs.2,24,112/- minus Rs.1,78,088/-). However, the interest being on higher side, it is reduced to 7.5% per annum from 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Since there is no legal impediment to grant compensation over and above the amount claimed, the said amount is granted in this appeal. 10. With the above modification in the interest and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 23.03.2010 kvrm [1] (2009)6 SCC 121