THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4181 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.04.2004, passed in M.V.O.P.No.237 of 1996 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Case of the claimants-petitioners is that while the deceased Krishna was travelling in lorry bearing No.AP 7 U 212 on 10.03.1995 at about 11.00 a.m. as paid passenger and when the lorry reached Pati Kaluva another lorry bearing No.AIL 5362 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry, in which the deceased was travelling, causing instantaneous death of the deceased. Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs as the deceased was aged 30 years and was doing business in vegetables. Respondents 1, 4 and 5 remained ex parte and the second respondent died. The third respondent-insurance company filed counter contending that the petitioners have to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of lorry No.AIL 5362. Sixth respondent filed counter denying all the allegations. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry AIL 5362by the second respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below granted a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- making the first respondent liable to pay compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the petitioners. Heard. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court below erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- in spite of the fact that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was a vegetable vendor and also contended that the Court below ought to have made R.3 liable to pay the compensation. Now, the point for consideration is ‘Whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal’? As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was aged about 30 years. Even as a labourer, he would have earned Rs.50/- per a day and approximately his contribution to the family would be Rs.1,000/- per month and thereby his annual contribution to the family would be Rs.12,000/-. On application of multiplier of ‘15’, the compensation will be Rs.1,80,000/- and another amount of Rs.20000/- can be granted under other heads. Thus, even without taking into consideration the possibility of enhancement in the income of the deceased in future, a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs can be granted to the petitioners. Hence, compensation of Rs.2 lakhs can be granted to the petitioners. As far as the question with regard to the liability of the third respondent is concerned, the Court below at paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment observed that “there is no evidence to show that the deceased was traveling as owner of the goods. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was traveling as a passenger and not as the owner of the goods. It is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. But the owner of the vehicle AIL 5362 is liable to pay the compensation”. The above finding of the learned Judge is erroneous as even assuming that the deceased is a fare paid passenger of a goods vehicle that fact is limited only to the extent of lorry No. AP 7 U 212 in which the deceased was traveling. As far as the lorry No.AIL 5362 is concerned, the deceased would be a third party. As such, the question as to whether the deceased was traveling with goods in that lorry is of no consequence. The insurance company is definitely liable to pay compensation to third party as far as lorry No.AIL 5362 is concerned, driver of which lorry caused the accident. Hence, it is held that the third respondent is also liable to pay the compensation. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- by making the third respondent also liable to pay the compensation. However, the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.70,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The apportionment of compensation shall be in the same proportion as ordered for the amount awarded by the Court below. There shall be no costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th June 2010, sur