THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3515 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12.11.2003 in O.P.No.583 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Adam, the husband of the 1st petitioner-P.W.1, father of the petitioners 2 to 6 and son of the petitioners 7 and 8, died in a motor accident on 26.12.1993 when he was proceeding on a tractor- trailer belonging to the 2nd respondent, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and turned turtle. The deceased is said to have received injuries and subsequently he died. The police have registered a case against the driver of the tractor and trailer. The 4th respondent is said to be the insurance company. The owner of the vehicle-2nd respondent has denied the involvement of the tractor-trailer and the insurance company has pleaded that the policy is not in existence. It was also pleaded by the 2nd respondent, who himself examined as R.W.2, that the deceased Adam did not die in the accident and that he was not employed on the tractor- trailer as a coolie and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the amount. The insurance company-3rd respondent has filed the written statement denying the petition averments and its liability. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal has not accepted the contention of the 2nd respondent and accepted the contention of the 4th respondent and granted a compensation of Rs.62,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the lower Tribunal has not taken into consideration the cause of death of the deceased and it has also not considered the loss of estate or the earning capacity of the deceased and consequently the claim is not valid. It has to be noted that it is for the petitioners to prove that the deceased died for the injuries received in a motor accident. The date of death is also not given in the petition. The petition contents only disclose that due to the injuries received by the deceased, he died. The contention of the owner of the vehicle that the deceased was not employed by him cannot be taken into consideration that a full- fledged trial has been conducted in the Criminal Court and a complaint is said to have been given by the deceased himself. Whether the deceased was employed by the 2nd respondent or not, the fact remains that while the deceased was unauthorisedly or authorisedly traveling on the tractor- trailer due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, he received injuries and consequently the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable to pay compensation. However, as can be seen from para 45 of the judgment at page No.23, the lower Tribunal held that he has no hesitation to reach a conclusion that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, that being so, which finding has not been challenged by the owner of the vehicle. Apart from the compensation of Rs.62,400/-, which was arrived at on the basis of loss of earnings, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is to be granted towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. The total compensation is enhanced to Rs.77,400/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand four hundred only). The interest shall carry at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 19-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3515 of 2011 DATE: 19-12-2011 MR