( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment and awards dated 28th day of August 1980 made by the Member Accidents claims Tribunal Gulbarga in M. V. C. Nos. 43, 45 and 50 of 1979 on his file dismissing the petition of the claimants. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly stated are : on 25-3-1979 at about 4 P. M. a lorry bearing registration No. MEZ 4457. on yadgir Shorapur road near Dodda Halla bridge, in which petitioner was travelling, turned turtle. As a result of that two claimants in M. V. C. 43 and 50/1979 received injuries whereas one Hayalappa died and his heirs instituted M. V. C. 45/79 claiming compensation. ( 3 ) IN all these cases respondents denied their liability. Alternatively they contended that the claim made was excessive. The tribunal apprediating the evidence on record held that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question. However, it came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorised by the owner to take any passenger in the lorry and that way neither the driver nor the owner nor the insurer was liable to pay the compensation, In that view he dismissed the claims. Aggrieved by the said judgment and awards, the claimants have instituted the above appeals before this Court. ( 4 ) M. F. A. No. 394/81 relates to the judgment and award in M V. C. No. 43/79; m. F. A No. 395/81 relates to the judgment and award in M V. C. No. 45/79 and m. F. A. No. 396/81 relates to the judgment and award in M. V. C. No. 50/1979. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in these cases submitted that the learned member of the Tribunal was not justified in conning to the conclusion that neither owner nor the driver was liable to pay the compensation on the facts of this cases. He further submitted that even the Insurer should be made liable. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued supporting the judgment and awards of the tribunal. Alternatively he submitted that it at all there is liability, it should be saddled on the Insurance company. He further submitted that even the Insurer should be made liable. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued supporting the judgment and awards of the tribunal. Alternatively he submitted that it at all there is liability, it should be saddled on the Insurance company. ( 5 ) THE points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in these appeals are:1) Whether the tribunal was not justified in holding that neither the driver nor the owner nor the Insurance company were liable to pay the compensation ? if not, what is the compensation to Which the claimants in each case are entitled to and from whom ?2) What order? ( 6 ) THE tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question. Since it is a case of res ipsa loquitur it is obvious that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry. That is not the point agitated before us. ( 7 ) WE have to consider whether the driver of the lorry is liable to pay the compensation when he taken fare paying passenger in a lorry and if the driver is liable to pay the compensation, whether it can be held that the owner is also liable vicariously and then we have to consider whether the Insurance policy covers such liability ? ( 8 ) THIS Court had occasion to consider the liability of the driver, owner and insurer. In the case of The Oriental fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B. Parvathamma and others [i. L. R. 1984 (2) karnataka at page 492], this Court has held that the driver would be liable as he permitted the passenger. The driver and the owner would be bound by the vicarious liability because the driver allowed the passenger in the course of his employment. This Court has also held, reviewing the case law on the point, that the Insurance Company would not be liable under the Compulsory Insurance Act policy as it is not covered by the clauses in the policy; "that the owner warned the driver not to take the passengers in the truck is no excuse so long the driver acts in the course of his employment. " It is obvious that the truck was in the custody of the driver in the course of his employment and he had the implied authority to take passengers also. Hence both the driver and the owner would be bound to pay the compensation for the reasons discussed in the aforesaid decision in detail. ( 9 ) THE next question that arises for our consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. In M. V. C. 45/1979 the passenger died ; he was aged about 40 years; he was a cooli; the tribunal has suggested total compensation of Rs. 16,056. 00 : it has taken the earning of the deceased at Rs. 6/- per day. If we take half of it towards his personal expenses he could spare Rs. 3/- to the family and the monthly loss of dependency would be rs. 90/ and the annual loss of dependency rs. 1080/-, multiplying it by 10 we get the total loss of dependency at Rs. 10,800/-, to this has to be added Rs 5,000/- towards the loss to the estate of the deceased he has left behind ; Rs 4,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1000/- towards his incit'ental expenses. Together, therefore, the compensation to be awarded comes to rs 20,800/-instead os Rs. 16,056/- suggested by the tribunal. From out of this amount Rs 5,000/- shall be awarded to each of the two minor sons along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. Remaining amoum shall be paid to the two widows in eaual proportion along with costs before the tribunal. The compensation awarded to the minor shall be deposited before the tribunal by the owner and the driver and the tribunal in turn shall deposit the same in a nationalised Bank in the names of minors till they attain the age of majority, with their mother the petitioner in MVC 45/79 as guardian. The mother would be at liberty to withdraw the interest accruing on the said deposit and spend the same for the welfare of the minors. M. F. A. 395/1981 is accordingly allowed partly. No costs of this appeal. ( 10 ) WE will next advert to M. F. A. 394/1981 which arises from the judgment and award made in M. V. C. No. 43/79. M. F. A. 395/1981 is accordingly allowed partly. No costs of this appeal. ( 10 ) WE will next advert to M. F. A. 394/1981 which arises from the judgment and award made in M. V. C. No. 43/79. In this case one Bandaiah suffered three fractures including a fracture of the left femur. The doctor who was examined opined that he could not give any opinion whether the fractures would lead to any disability. Thus there is no clinching evidence on the aspect whether the claimants suffered any disability. In that view the tribunal has suggested compensation of Rs. 10,500/- inclusive of special damages. We accept it and hold that claimant should be awarded Rs. 10,500/- as compensation along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment as also costs before the tribunal, by the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No costs of this appeal. ( 11 ) LASTLY we refer to M. F. A. No. 396/1981 which arises out of the judgment and award made in MVC 50/79. This is a case of minor injuries suffered by the claimant. The tribunal analysing the evidence of the doctor, has suggested that compensation of Rs. 3. 000/- should be awarded. We accept it. We accordingly direct the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question to pay the same to the claimant in M. V. C. No 50/1979 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment as also the costs of the claimant before the tribunal. No costs of this appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Appeal against the Insurance Company is dismissed. No costs. The above is true transcription of the judgment dictated to me by late Hon'ble mr. Justice G. N. Sabhahit, in Open court, on 31-10-1984. --- *** --- .