JUDGMENT : G.D. Kamat, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of one and the same award dated 30.6.1987 in Claim Petition No. 151 of 1985. We will refer to the parties in First Appeal No. 162 of 1987 by their nomenclature. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had instituted the claim petition seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the basis that on 3.10.1985, their son, Mariano, who was travelling in a passenger bus bearing registration No. GDS 1826 fell out of the bus and was crushed. Though he was rendered medical assistance in the Medical College Hospital, Mariano died on the 3rd day after the accident. It was their case that Mariano was employed as a casual labourer on wages of Rs. 10/- per day by the Public Works Department. 2. The claim was opposed and it appears that on behalf of the owner, driver and the insurance company, it was mentioned that deceased Mariano was by the side of the road; that road had been dug up for laying water pipeline; that when the bus came to Pidno-Vorna as a result of the slipping of the soil, the bus fell down, tilted against a coconut tree, as a consequence of which Mariano sustained injuries; that accident was a simple and pure natural accident and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the father and mother of deceased Mariano. 3. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal found that Mariano was 21 years of age and though he was working as a casual labourer, there was a possibility of his becoming permanent employee of the Public Works Department and importing the principle of dependency determined a compensation in an amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- and on application of acceleration of a lump sum award slashed the same by ten per cent with the result the compensation awarded came to Rs. 93,000/-. 4. Brief reference to the break-up of the compensation is necessary regard being had to the controversy raised in the appeal for according to the owner in First Appeal No. 42 of 1988, the compensation is on the higher side and excessive. The Tribunal awarded a sum by way of special damages of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- on the grounds of pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 75,000/ for loss of income and Rs. The Tribunal awarded a sum by way of special damages of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- on the grounds of pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 75,000/ for loss of income and Rs. 20,000/- by way of an additional compensation for loss of company. 5. It is difficult to accept that there was any cogent evidence before the Tribunal so as to award compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the parents of deceased Mariano. We will presently point out that the only evidence in that behalf that Mariano was employed as a casual labourer on payment of Rs. 10/- per day by way of daily wages has come from a co-worker. A colleague of his was examined to prove his wages and it has come in the evidence of J.P. D'Souza, AW 6, that the daily wages prevalent in September, 1985, were Rs. 10/- per day. Though there has been enhancement of wage from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day it was at the time when he had tendered evidence in September, 1985. It is, therefore, clear that as a daily rated worker Mariano was getting a salary anywhere between Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- per month. Looking to this income and some part of it is required by the deceased Mariano for himself and otherwise his future matrimonial prospects, we do not think the dependency in any case will exceed Rs. 35,000/-. In our view, some compensation has to be awarded to the -parents on the ground that they have suffered a loss of life of their eldest son. We, therefore, feel that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- can be awarded to his parents on the head of loss of life and for the pain, shock and suffering by the deceased Mariano immediately after the accident until his death. In our view, there is no justification for award of any higher compensation. 6. Once we come to the determination of compensation, we now come to the main challenge by the insurance company in First Appeal No. 162 of 1987. Mr. Bharne says that regard being had to the statutory passenger liability as spoken to in Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. Mr. Bharne says that regard being had to the statutory passenger liability as spoken to in Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger. According to him, this is well settled now by the decision of the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed Vs. P.A. Ahmedkutty and Others. In-our view, there is merit in the contention by the insurance company. Indeed a point was sought to be raised by the appellant-owner in First Appeal No. 42 of 1988 and also by the original claimant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals (parents of deceased Mariano) that when the written statement was filed by the owner, driver and the insurer, defence was as if Mariano was crushed under the bus while Mariano was on the roadside and not as a bus passenger. We are unable to accept this contention on behalf of the owner and driver for the simple reason that the evidence suggests that deceased Mariano was in the bus when the accident arose. The original claimants in support of their claim adduced the evidence of a co-passenger that Mariano was in the bus. It is difficult, therefore, to accept that the original claimants can be permitted to deviate from their pleadings. The content of this discussion, therefore, is that liability of the insurer in First Appeal No. 162 of 1987 will have to be restricted to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- that being the per passenger statutory liability. We are told across the Bar by the learned Counsel for the insurer that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has already been paid to the original claimants by way of no fault liability soon after the institution of the claim petition and which fact has been confirmed by the counsel for the original claimants. 7. Looking to the circumstances in which a young life of about 21 years was lost, that too in a tragic incident and Mariano being the eldest son of the original claimants, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals, in our view, a direction should be given to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of ex gratia payment in addition to the payment of Rs. 15,000/- already made under no fault liability. 1 and 2 in both the appeals, in our view, a direction should be given to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of ex gratia payment in addition to the payment of Rs. 15,000/- already made under no fault liability. Needless to say that the same shall not bear any interest. The sum of Rs. 15,000/- already paid by the insurer shall be deducted from the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- now awarded. The result is the balance compensation of Rs. 35,000/- is directed to be paid by the owner-appellant in First Appeal No. 42 of 1988 and the respondent-driver jointly and severally without interest with Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs together making a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. We direct the parties to make the payment within eight weeks from today. Impugned award to the extent indicated shall, accordingly, stand modified. Appeals 'are accordingly partly allowed.