THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.P.A.Nos.164, 206 and 337 of 2001 Date of Judgment: --10--2009 Between: CT in L.P.A.No.164 of 2001 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapur. …Appellant and 1. Boya Pasupula Chinnaiah and others. ..Respondents. The court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.P.A.Nos.164, 206 and 337 of 2001 Common Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These three appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed by the Insurance Company are directed against the common Judgment dated 20-11-2000 passed in C.M.A.Nos.3041, 3042 and 2532 of 2000 wherein and whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company confirming the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool dated 11-04-2000. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the claimants laid claims in O.P.Nos.821, 813 and 818 of 1998 seeking compensation for the death of deceased who died on 13-04-1998. All the deceased, who are resident of Pusulur village, claims to have engaged a lorry to transport their cotton bales to Adoni Market yard. While the lorry proceeding towards Adoni Market yard it turned turtle and fell into Manikanta Vagu. Alleging that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry owned by the 1st respondent the accident has occurred and claimed compensation. The owner of the lorry remained ex- parte. The Insurance Company filed a counter contesting the matter contending that the owner of the lorry was not authorised to take passengers, as it is goods carrying vehicle and violated the conditions of the insurance policy; therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties allowed the claim of Rs.1,17,200/- for the death of Boya Narayana and Rs.1,30,000/- for the death of Ramanjaneyulu and Rs.86,200/- for the death of Boya Chinna Giddayya. Aggrieved by the said orders the Insurance Company carried the matter in appeals—C.M.A.Nos.3041, 3042 and 2532 of 2000. The learned single Judge of this Court rejected the contention of the Insurance Company that the persons involved in the accident are unauthorised passengers and they are not entitled for the compensation and held as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY v. SATPAL SINGH[1] even the gratuitous passengers are entitled to compensation. The learned single Judge also held that even if the wrong multiplier has been applied for calculation, it is not open for the Insurance Company to challenge the method of calculation, as required permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) has not been obtained and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Questioning the correctness of the same the present three appeals have been filed. Sri T.Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Company is not challenging the calculation in arriving the loss of dependency, but only contends the age of the parents have to be taken into consideration for fixation of the compensation in the first two cases i.e. L.P.A.Nos.164 and 206 of 2001; whereas in the third case i.e. L.P.A.No.337 of 2001 the wife is younger to the age of the deceased, so the age of the deceased has to be taken for fixing the compensation. In support of the said submission strong reliance is placed on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v SMT. SHANTI PATHAK & OTHERS[2]. He further contends that since the deceased are travelling in goods vehicle, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Per contra, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Insurance Company without obtaining necessary permission under Section 170 of the Act cannot question the applicability of relevant multiplier on which basis compensation is calculated. He further contends in the absence of any evidence that the deceased were not sitting in the cabin and accident occurred after amendment of the Act, the passengers of the goods are also entitled to compensation. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the judgment under appeals is liable to be set aside or modified” It is not disputed that the accident as such was occurred on 13-04-1998 i.e. after amending clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 147 by Act 54/1994, which came into force from 14-11-1994 reads thus: “147 Requirements of policies and limits of liability (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) x x x x x (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) 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 authorised 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.” Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the passengers traveling in goods vehicle die in a motor accident, their legal heirs are entitled to compensation for the death caused as a result of accident. It is also not disputed that the Insurance Company cannot question the quantum of loss of future dependency ascertained by the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased. Whether questioning the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal amounts to questioning the quantum or not has to be considered. Sub-Section (1) of Section 149 of the Act also underwent amendment by Act 54 of 1994, which reads as under: “149 Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks:- (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub- section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is require? to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of section 163A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments”. The Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[3] prescribed the multiplier to be followed in cases not falling under Section 163-A of the Act. In SHANTI PATHA’s (2 supra) on the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment of a Division Bench of Uttaranchal High Court, dismissing the appeal on the ground that no permission has been granted to the insurer to contest the claim, the Supreme Court applied the appropriate multiplier in stead of multiplier applied by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. The Insurance Company is not questioning the quantum of compensation to be fixed basing upon future loss of income but the quantum so arrived should be in accordance with the liability prescribed under the Act. Since the liability of the Insurance Company in case of death of unmarried person depends upon the age of the mother and the appropriate multiplier to be applied, the same will not amount to questioning the quantum. Therefore, while upholding the future loss of income which the deceased contributed to the family, we apply 11 multiplier in stead of 16 in case of O.P.No.821 of 1998 and 13 multiplier in stead of 16 in case of O.P.No.813 of 1998 by taking the age of the mothers of the respective deceased and confirm the fixation of 11 multiplier applied in O.P.No.818 of 1998, though 13 multiplier is to be applied, since there is no cross-appeal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is confirmed. In view of the above, the claimants in O.P.No.821 of 1998 are entitled to Rs.79,200/- (Rs.600/- x 12 x 11) + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.81,200/-. The claimants in O.P.No.813 of 1998 are entitled to Rs.1,04,000/- (Rs.8,000/- (PA) x 13) + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.1,06,000/-. In the result, L.P.A.Nos.164 and 206 of 2001 are allowed, to the extent indicated above, and L.P.A.No.337 of 2001 is dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. -10-2009 Murthy [1] JT 1999 (9) SC 416 [2] 2007(1) DT (SC) 591 [3] 2009 ACJ 1298