JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 10-04-2001, the insurance company filed the appeal. 2. The brief facts as stated in the claim petition are that the deceased was hale and healthy and was an expert carpenter and was earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- and he was also a hamali. On 31-10-1995, at about 2.45 p.m. when the deceased and his brother were travelling in the lorry bearing NO.AP.02-V.2195 as hamalies along with wooden frames from Rasimpalli to Kothecheruvu, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and took sudden turn and applied sudden breaks to give side to pass opposite D.B. Cart and as a result, the deceased who was sitting in the cabin, fell on the ground due to jerk and rear wheel of the lorry ran over the deceased and he received grievous and multiple fractures on both legs. The deceased was taken to hospital in van and he died on the way to hospital. A case was registered by Bukkapatnam police in Cr.No.41/95 under Section 304-A of I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry. Claiming that the claimants are depending on the income of the deceased and as a result of death of the deceased, they lost bread winner to the family, the claimants filed claim petition for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The insurance company filed counter and denied the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased is an unauthorized passenger at the time of accident and as such he is not covered by the policy. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 31-10-95 due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-2195 by its driver and dashed against the petitioner and caused the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. In support of the case of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and she also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. In support of the case of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and she also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, no witness was examined, except marking EX.B-1 copy of the policy. 6. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Adverting to the contention of the insurance company that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, the Tribunal having found that the insurance company collected an amount of Rs.50/- under Exd.B-1 policy for risk of third parties, held that even the authorized (sic. unauthorized) passengers are also entitled to claim damages. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering the evidence on record that the deceased was doing agriculture and that in EX.A-4 inquest report, it is mentioned that he was a carpenter, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.900/- and after deducting 1 /3rd towards his personal expenses, fixed the contribution of the deceased towards his family at Rs.600/- and as the deceased was aged 35 years, applied the multiplier 17 and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,22,400/- and the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of estate and thus in all the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 1,30,400/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal is filed. 7. The only ground raised in the grounds of appeal as well as by counsel for the appellant is that as the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Kanda Reddy and others1 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rai and others2. 8. None appeared for the claimants. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Kanda Reddy and others1 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rai and others2. 8. None appeared for the claimants. 9. In order to meet the contention of the appellant that as the deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle he is not entitled to compensation, it is necessary to look into insurance policy, which is marked as Ex. B-1. From a perusal of the policy it could be seen that an amount of Rs.50/- was collected "for LL to non-fare paying passengers IMT 13 i.e., for the risk of third parties. In the present case, the deceased is a third party. Therefore, if looked from that angle, as the insurance company has collected the premium, it cannot escape its liability. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant the Apex Court held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the gratuitous passengers. There is no dispute with regard to the said proposition of law. But in the present case, the insurance company has admittedly collected an additional amount of Rs.50/- for covering the risk of third parties. In view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments relied on by the counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable. Since the insurance company collected the premium covering the risk of third parties, therefore, the Tribunal held that owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurance company are liable to pay the compensation. 10. In view of the above reasons, the impugned award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the appeal is liable to the dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.