Honble JAIN, J. – The appellant has filed this misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against the award dated 12/10/1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Phalodi in claim petition no. 169/94/94-92 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded of Rs. 1,93,000/- against the appellant and respondent No. 2 join- tly and severally. (2). The material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows. In the afternoon of 11/12/1991 deceased Gumanaram was standing infront-of the office of the R.S.E.B., Jodhpur. Truck No. RJS-1615 was also standing there belonging to the appellant. Shri Manaklal was the driver of the above vehicle. Manaklal was on friendly terms with deceased Gumanaram. Manaklal invited Gumanaram to visit Jaisalmer where he was proceeding with the truck. Thereupon Gumanaram boarded the truck. It is also alleged that Shri Rapudan Singh was sitting on the cabin and Ganpat Singh helper, Ramanlal helper and Gordhan Singh were also sitting in the body of the truck alongwith Gumanaram. With these persons the driver started the truck for Jaisalmer. As soon as the truck reached the Bhicamkore Railway Gate it overturned because the driver Shri Manaklal could not control the vehicle. It is also to be stated that the truck was carrying transformers. When the truck tilted on one side, the transformers were also pushed to that side on account of the imbalance of the truck. As a result of the above accident Gumanaram was crushed by the tyres of the truck and died instantaneously on the spot. The F.I.R. of this occurrence Ex. P-1 was lodged by Manaklal at Police Station, Osia, Distt. Jodhpur. On receipt of this report, the police registered a case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and started investigation. The site was inspected and site memo Ex. P-2 was prepared. According to the site memo it appears that the place where the accident occurred was in the semi-circular shape and very near to the railway gate. The inquest report and postmortem report were prepared and a challan was eventually filed in the Court of Magistrate against Driver Manaklal. The claim petition was filed by Smt. Nirmla w/o Gumanaram. Ms. Sulochna minor daughter and Rajesh minor son of deceased Gumanaram under Section 166 of the Act claim- ing total compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. The inquest report and postmortem report were prepared and a challan was eventually filed in the Court of Magistrate against Driver Manaklal. The claim petition was filed by Smt. Nirmla w/o Gumanaram. Ms. Sulochna minor daughter and Rajesh minor son of deceased Gumanaram under Section 166 of the Act claim- ing total compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. The appellant and respondent no. 4 filed reply separately. The driver, in his reply, admitted the accident but denied that he invited Gumanaram to board the truck for going to Jaisalmer. He disclaimed any knowledge of Gumanaram have boarded the above truck. He very significantly stated that the truck was mechanically defective and was not road worthy. He brought this matter to the notice of higher officer of the appellant but the latter asked him to take the above truck for transporting the transformers. The driver has, therefore, stated that he had to drive the above vehicle in that condition. He has attributed the accident to the mechanical defects and bad condition of the vehicle. Appellant filed reply in the Tribunal on 13/8/1993 and denied the allegations of the claimants. It was denied that Gumanaram died in an accident involving the above truck. Gumanaram was not authorised to board the above vehicle and nor was he authorised by the driver to occupy the above vehicle for travelling upto Jaisalmer. It was also alleged that even if the driver allowed, deceased Gumanaram to board the above vehicle for the above journey, the R.S.E.B. was not responsible for his act. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues which, as translated, are as follows : 1. It Whether non-petitioner no. 1 caused accident on 11/12/1991 at 3:00 p.m. by rashly and negligently driving truck no. RJS 1615 and thereby caused the death of Gumanaram? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10 lacs? 3. Relief. (3). In the claim petition, the claimants filed certified copies of the F.I.R., site memo and other documents which were prepared in the criminal case which was registered against the driver Manaklal. The parties also led evidence. The claimants examined Rasool Khan AW-1. This is an important witness in the sense that at the time of accident he was working as gateman of the railway gate near which the accident occurred. He has seen the occurrence. The parties also led evidence. The claimants examined Rasool Khan AW-1. This is an important witness in the sense that at the time of accident he was working as gateman of the railway gate near which the accident occurred. He has seen the occurrence. He has stated that the driver was driving the vehicle at a very excessive speed and when he was negotiating the curve, he could not control the stearing of the vehicle and overturned and a person sitting on the body of the truck was crushed to death. Manaklal driver has stated that he was not driving the truck either rashly or negligently but with a moderate speed. He also denied that he invited the deceased to board the truck for making the journey to Jaisalmer. In fact he has no knowledge that the deceased had boarded the above truck. According to him the accident occurred because the brakes failed. He also stated that stearing was defective and he brought this material fact to the notice of the A.En. and he also made a report regarding the defects in the vehicle on 5/12/1991. He categorically stated that since the stearing could not be applied properly, he could not move the vehicle when he was negotiating the sharp curve and the truck overturned. He was confronted with the contents of his written statements which contains so many material contradictions. Ganesh Joshi DW-2 was A.En. was of the appellant Department. He admitted that Manaklal took the above truck for transporting transformers from Jodhpur Store. He dies not remember Gumanaram. Ramanlal DW-3 has stated that the truck was old one. When the A.En. asked Manaklal to take the above vehicle, the latter protested that since the vehicle was not in good condition and was not roadworthy, he was not inclined to take the same but under pressure from the A.En. he had to take the vehicle. He has stated that in that truck besides him 5 or 6 persons were sitting. When Gumanaram boarded the truck, he objected but did not inform the driver about the unauthorised boarding of the deceased. (4). From the above, the learned Tribunal concluded the vehicle which Manaklal was driving on that day was not roadworthy. It was having very serious defects and the driver also protested to the A.En. When Gumanaram boarded the truck, he objected but did not inform the driver about the unauthorised boarding of the deceased. (4). From the above, the learned Tribunal concluded the vehicle which Manaklal was driving on that day was not roadworthy. It was having very serious defects and the driver also protested to the A.En. but the latter did not pay any heed and compelled the driver to take the transformers in the above vehicle to Jaisalmer. The learned Tribunal has, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that when the driver was negotiating the sharp curve near the railway gate he could not control the stearing and the vehicle overturned. It was also pointed by him that the driver resiled from some portions of his written statement. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the driver was in the employment of the RSEB as a driver. He, therefore, held that the appellant was vicariously liable for the act of driver. (5). Regarding the compensation the learned Tribunal believed the version of the complainants that the deceased was a tailor and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. He accepted the above monthly income. After deducting on account of his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed dependency at Rs. 1,333/- per month. He, however, without specifying the multiplier assessed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the dependents claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-. He also awarded a consortium to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of love and affection. He further allowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- for trans- porting the dead body and on account of cremation expenses. Thus the total claim found was Rs. 1,93,000/-. (6). I have heard Shri G.M. Bhandari appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri H.R. Panwar appearing on behalf of the respondents. (7). Shri Bhandari has assailed the award on the ground that there is no reliable evidence that the deceased boarded the above vehicle with the consent or knowledge of the driver. He was an unauthorised passenger in the vehicle. Hence even if the accident occurred even by the rash and negligent act of the driver, the claimants could not get any compensation from the appellant because the driver never knew of his presence in the vehicle. He was an unauthorised passenger in the vehicle. Hence even if the accident occurred even by the rash and negligent act of the driver, the claimants could not get any compensation from the appellant because the driver never knew of his presence in the vehicle. He also assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal as regards the rash and negligent act of the driver. The amount awarded is also on the excessive side. (8). Shri Panwar has supported the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was invited by the driver to board the truck for making a journey to Jaisalmer and that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Manaklal. He also held that the Tribunal correctly held the appellant liable for the act of the driver who was formers employee. However he submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal was on the lower side. For which he filed cross-objection and prayed that cross- objection may be allowed and the claim may be suitably enhanced. (9). Regarding the vicarious liability of the appellant Shri Panwar has referred to the following cases :– (10). Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. and Anr. (1), State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysingh Shirke (2), Sohanlal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others (3), State of M.P. and Anr. vs. Ratna Devi & Ors. (4) and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (5). (11). I have considered the rival contentions. Regarding the finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal, I find no lacuna in the same. It may be stated that when the deceased boarded the truck he sat behind the seat of the driver. 5 or 6 persons were sitting with him. Ramanlal however has stated that he objected when deceased wanted to board the truck. He is not telling the truth. If he objected to the same and despite that the deceased boarded the vehicle he ought to have brought the matter to the notice of the driver. The learned Tribunal has correctly opined that the deceased was known to the driver as they were residing in the same town and were living in the same vicinity. Normally in such a case an unauthorised person cannot board the truck. The learned Tribunal has correctly opined that the deceased was known to the driver as they were residing in the same town and were living in the same vicinity. Normally in such a case an unauthorised person cannot board the truck. The persons occupying the body of truck would object and would not allow such thing. They would definitely have made a complaint to the driver. Hence I do not find any fault with the appreciation of the learned Tribunal in this regard. Regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver in causing the accident, there is evidence in abundance. There is evidence that the above vehicle was not roadworthy. The stearing wheel was defective and there was certain other major defects. The driver was also reluctant to take the above vehicle for transporting the transformers and he gave in writting to the A.En. also. It appears that the A.En. Shri Joshi did not realise the implication of this fact and compelled him to take the vehicle on the road for transporting the transformers. The driver has clearly admitted that when he wanted to negotiate the sharp curve near the railway gate, he could not properly employ the stearing wheel and the truck could not be commanded. It, therefore, overturned as a result of which Gumanaram died on the spot crushed by the wheels of the vehicle. (12). It has also not been disputed before me that at the relevant time the driver was in the employment of the R.S.E.B. After ascertaining this factual aspect of the matter there is no difficulty in assessing the liability of the appellant. In Push- pabais case (supra), the facts were that the car was driven by the Manager of the Company for the purpose of companys business. The Manager permitted a passenger to travel with him in the car. The car met with an accident resulting in the death of the above passenger. It was held that the accident was due to the negligence of the servant of the company and it occurred in the course of employ- ment. The master was, therefore, held liable. In State of Maharashtra vs. Kanchanmalas case (supra), the vehicle was driven by another person under the authority of Govt. driver who was incharge of the vehicle. Manner or mode of execution of authority of the Government by the driver was only in dispute. The master was, therefore, held liable. In State of Maharashtra vs. Kanchanmalas case (supra), the vehicle was driven by another person under the authority of Govt. driver who was incharge of the vehicle. Manner or mode of execution of authority of the Government by the driver was only in dispute. It was also not disputed was vehicle was being used in connection with the affairs of the State and for official purposes. The accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of that person. It was held that the accident took place when act authorised was being performed in an unauthorised manner but was out of the course of employment and the Government was liable for the same. The same view was expressed in Sohanlal Passis case. (13). In this case it is not difficult to hold that Manaklal driver was driving the above vehicle for transporting the transformers of the R.S.E.B. by the instructions of Shri Joshi A.En. Admittedly the vehicle was being taken by the driver in the discharge of his Government duty as a driver for transporting the material of the R.S.E.B. The accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver. The clai- mants have, therefore, proved that the death of Gumanaram was caused by the driver Manaklal while discharging his duties as driver of the R.S.E.B. while transporting the transformer. He, therefore, performed an act in an unauthorised manner. Obviously the appellant being the employer of driver Manaklal was vicariously responsible for the act committed by the latter on the basis of the authorities cited above. (14). Now, the compensation. I agree with the assessment made by the learned Tribunal as regards the monthly income of deceased Gumanaram. The income may be taken to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. The annual income comes to Rs. 24,000/-. After deducting 1/3 as personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs. 16,000/- per year. A multiplier of 15 will be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. I also hold that the learned Tribunal has correctly allowed Rs. 3,000/- for transportation of the dead body and for incurring cremation expenses, he also correctly allowed the amount of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus total claim is assessed at Rs. 2,58,000/-. (15). Hence the compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. I also hold that the learned Tribunal has correctly allowed Rs. 3,000/- for transportation of the dead body and for incurring cremation expenses, he also correctly allowed the amount of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus total claim is assessed at Rs. 2,58,000/-. (15). For the above reasons, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed but the cross-objections are allowed and the claim is enhanced from Rs. 1,93,000/- to Rs. 2,58,000/-. The claimant will also get interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. The disbursement of the amount shall be as directed by the learned Tribunal. No orders as to the costs.