JUDGMENT : S. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole, in O.P. No. 121 of 2000 on 31.3.2003, this appeal has been filed by the Appellant. 2. The Appellant herein is the insurance company and the Respondents herein are the injured-claimant and the owner of the crime vehicle respectively before the Tribunal. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The injured who was aged 22 years was working as a hydraulic operator and earning Rs. 2,900 per month. On 22.7.1999, while the injured and two other drivers were coming back from Chimakurthy in the tipper bearing No. AP 27-T 7225 after picking up the workers at Chimakurthy for night duty at about 7 p.m., and when the tipper reached Pasuvula Keshatram turning, a lorry came from the opposite direction with high speed and since the driver of the tipper was going on high speed, he could not control the vehicle but applied brakes and as a result of which the tipper skidded and fell down, due to which the injured and the other two drivers sustained injuries. The injured sustained crush injury to his right hand and grievous injury to his right eye and multiple injuries all over the body. Thereafter, the injured were shifted to Dr. Rambabu's Hospital, Ongole, where they were given the first aid and later the injured was shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada for special treatment. The right hand of the injured was amputated up to above elbow and discharged on 5.8.1999 and injured was advised to take continuous treatment for further period. The injured was admitted in Nagendra Babu Clinic, Warangal, wherein he took treatment. He spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and still he is undergoing treatment. His right eyelid lost its action and it is permanently closed. Hence, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him. 4. The owner of the crime vehicle had filed a counter admitting that the injured is working as hydraulic operator under him and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,900/- per month. He admitted the accident and the injuries sustained by the injured. 5. 5,00,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him. 4. The owner of the crime vehicle had filed a counter admitting that the injured is working as hydraulic operator under him and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,900/- per month. He admitted the accident and the injuries sustained by the injured. 5. The insurance company has filed a counter denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the injured is not the hydraulic operator and he is only an un-authorised passenger in the vehicle and with a view to get compensation, the injured invented the story that he is working as hydraulic operator. It also contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the crime vehicle is not insured with the insurance company, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Apart from that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following points were framed for trial before the Tribunal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper bearing No. AP 27-T 7225? (2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation? (3) To what relief? 7. Before the Tribunal, to establish the claim of the injured, PW 1 was examined and Exhs. A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf. No witnesses were marked on behalf of the owner of the crime vehicle and the insurance company. But, Exh. B1 copy of policy marked by consent on its behalf. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal having come to a conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver and having accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,900/- per month and fixing the permanent disability at 25 per cent and having arrived the loss of earnings at Rs. 700/- per month and having applied multiplier of 40, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,41,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of deposit. 9. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 10. 700/- per month and having applied multiplier of 40, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,41,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of deposit. 9. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 10. Heard the learned standing counsel for the insurance company and the learned Counsel for the claimant and the owner of the tipper. 11. The main contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the insurance company is twofold: (1) Whether the injured was an un-authorised passenger in a goods vehicle and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company? (2) Whether Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 40 and proper multiplier is 18? 12. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant would contend that the injured was an employee under the owner of the tipper lorry as a hydraulic operator and he was travelling in the vehicle to go to the workshop along with other workers and Exh. B1 policy would show that Rs. 50 has been paid separately as premium for covering the risk of such workers. Therefore, the order under appeal needs no interference. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle also supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the injured and would contend that the owner of the vehicle has paid the premium at Rs. 50 under IMT 14 and Rs. 60 under IMT 17 which will squarely cover the risk of persons who travel in the tipper. 14. I have perused the Exh. B1 policy and the material available on record. 15. Apart from the payment of premium towards third parties, the owner of the vehicle has also paid Rs. 50 as premium under IMT 14 and Rs. 60 under IMT 17. 16. IMT 14 mentioned in Commercial Vehicle (Goods Carrying Vehicle) 'B' Policy reads as follows: In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs. 15. Apart from the payment of premium towards third parties, the owner of the vehicle has also paid Rs. 50 as premium under IMT 14 and Rs. 60 under IMT 17. 16. IMT 14 mentioned in Commercial Vehicle (Goods Carrying Vehicle) 'B' Policy reads as follows: In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs. and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-1(c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against his legal liability other than liability under statute (except Fatal Accidents Act, 1855) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured and not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is: (a) The owner or representative of the owner of the goods. (b) Charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. (c) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle described in the Schedule of this policy. Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy. 17. IMT 17 mentioned in Commercial Vehicle (Goods Carrying Vehicle) 'B' Policy reads as follows: In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary the company shall indemnify the insured against his legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of that Act prior to the date of this endorsement, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, or at common law in respect of personal injury to any paid driver (or cleaner or conductor or person employed in loading and/or unloading but in any case not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner) whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the...and not exceeding seven in number and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent. The premium having been calculated at the rate of Rs. 15 per driver (and/or cleaner or conductor and/or person employed in loading and/or unloading but not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner). The premium having been calculated at the rate of Rs. 15 per driver (and/or cleaner or conductor and/or person employed in loading and/or unloading but not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner). Provided always that: (1) This endorsement does not indemnify the insured in respect of any liability in cases where the insured holds or subsequently effects with any insurance company or group of underwriters a policy of insurance in respect of liability as herein defined for his general employees. (2) The insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and shall comply with all statutory obligations. (3) The insured shall keep a record of the name of each driver, cleaner, conductor or person employed in loading and/or unloading and the amount of salary, wages and other earnings paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the company to inspect such record. (4) In the event of the policy being cancelled at the request of the insured no refund of the premium paid in respect of this endorsement will be allowed. Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 18. Under IMT 17, the driver and the cleaner of the lorry and other workers are covered. Under IMT 14 (c) squarely covers the case of the injured. 19. As per IMT 14 (c) any person travelling in the lorry in journey for the purpose of attending work will squarely be covered for the risk of the injury or death sustained by him. 20. Therefore, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the insurance company that the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company does not hold good. 21. The next contention of the learned standing counsel for the insurance company is that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 40. 22. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 40 on the ground that the injured was 22 years at the time of the accident and he would have worked for 40 years more and, therefore, applied multiplier 40. 23. In the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier that can be applied is only 18 and, therefore, proper multiplier applicable is only 18. In this case, the loss of earnings was estimated at Rs. 700/- per month. 23. In the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier that can be applied is only 18 and, therefore, proper multiplier applicable is only 18. In this case, the loss of earnings was estimated at Rs. 700/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 18, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,51,200/- (i.e., Rs. 700 18 12/- = Rs. 1,51,200/-) with interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 24. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.