Judgment : 1. The appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, dated 26.07.2002. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that J. Rama Chandra Reddy, an Advocate, practising before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and aged 27 years, was travelling in a Maruti Van No.AP 9Z 368, owned by the respondent, on 17.06.1994 at about 5.30 a.m., when the van met with an accident on the National Highway No.7 within the limits of Puttandoddi village. J. Rama Chandra Reddy died on the spot in the accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Van, who dashed against a parked lorry from behind. J. Rama Chandra Reddy paid fare to the driver of the Maruthi Van for travelling in the van and Kodandapur police registered Crime No.11 of 1994 regarding the incident. Rama Chandra Reddy was earning a minimum of Rs.4,000/- per month, which he was contributing in entirety for the maintenance of his parents, who hence, claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-from the owner of the Maruthi Van. 3. The respondent contested the claim contending that the vehicle is a private vehicle of the respondent without any insurance intended to carry the officers of the corporation and not any passengers. The travel of the deceased in the vehicle was illegal and unauthorized and hence, the corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The other allegations of the claimants were also denied. 4. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation from the respondent. 5. It examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 during the course of the enquiry. 6. It rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Van as probablised by Ex.A4-First Information Report, Ex.A5-Final Report and Ex.A6-Inquest Report. The Tribunal noted that the driver also died in the accident and rejected the contention of the corporation about the absence of any liability to pay compensation on the ground of the deceased being an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal noted that the driver also died in the accident and rejected the contention of the corporation about the absence of any liability to pay compensation on the ground of the deceased being an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased to be probably Rs.2,500/-per month, deducting half of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 11 with reference to the age of the mother at 47 years by then to arrive at the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.1,65,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,500/-each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and on the total compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. It directed the compensation to be shared equally between the claimants/parents. 7. The appellant corporation filed this appeal again contending that the position of the owner of the vehicle is like that of an insurer and when the van was intended only to carry the officials and not the passengers, any unauthorized act of the driver in permitting passengers to travel by the vehicle cannot fasten any liability to the corporation. 8. The claimants filed their cross objections contending that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a very low level ignoring the fact that he was commanding a good practice. Future prospects of the deceased were also not taken into account and deduction towards personal expenses should have been only at 1/3rd. The loss of estate and funeral expenses were also not granted at a reasonable level and hence, the claimants desired that the balance of compensation claimed also may be granted. 9. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant are heard. 10. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay any compensation to the claimants? 2. If so, at what quantum? 11. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The specific contention in the counter before the Tribunal by the appellant corporation is that the car is a private car of the corporation without any insurance. As such, any liability of the owner or insurer being circumscribed by any terms and conditions of any insurance policy does not arise. If so, at what quantum? 11. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The specific contention in the counter before the Tribunal by the appellant corporation is that the car is a private car of the corporation without any insurance. As such, any liability of the owner or insurer being circumscribed by any terms and conditions of any insurance policy does not arise. It was also contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that the driver is a necessary and proper party, but admittedly, the driver also died in the accident. The car might have been meant for use of the officials of the corporation, but not for carrying any passengers. But, when the driver of the corporation allowed the deceased to travel in the car of the corporation and due to his rash and negligent driving the accident and the consequential death of the deceased has occurred, the corporation cannot escape from answering its vicarious liability under the Law of Tort. The principle of an insurer not being liable to compensate any injuries or death to an unauthorized passenger travelling in an insured vehicle is based on the violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and even then, the liability of the owner of the vehicle to so compensate still remains and was never recognized by any precedent to be absent. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly rejected the contention of the corporation in this regard and the corporation is bound to justly and adequately compensate the claimants/the parents of the deceased, when the finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the corporation being the cause for the accident is not in dispute in this appeal. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Exs.A2 and A3 proved that the deceased was enrolled as an advocate after graduation in Law and he was stated to be practising before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh since enrolment in 1991. His father as P.W.1 stated on oath that his son was earning Rs.4,000/-per month and contributing the same to his family. While he admitted that he did not file any document to show the quantum of earnings, even the cross-examination by the corporation did not suggest that the quantum of income claimed by him is incorrect or false. His father as P.W.1 stated on oath that his son was earning Rs.4,000/-per month and contributing the same to his family. While he admitted that he did not file any document to show the quantum of earnings, even the cross-examination by the corporation did not suggest that the quantum of income claimed by him is incorrect or false. The impugned award assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-per month basing on its estimate of the approximate income at the initial stage of his career. When there is evidence on oath before the Tribunal, there should have been valid and relevant reasons for not acting upon such evidence and when the claims of P.W.1 were neither questioned in cross-examination nor contradicted by any evidence by the respondent, the same should have been taken as the basis for assessing the compensation, more so, when an advocate practising before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh could have been reasonably assumed to earn a decent income from his practice even as a junior attached to any senior commanding good practice. However, taking into account the natural tendency to exaggerate such income to get higher compensation, reducing the claimed income by 1/8th, it can be estimated at Rs.3,500/- per month. An element of guess and estimate is of course, inevitable in such estimate and if half of such income were to be assessed as accountable towards the personal expenses of the unmarried only son of the claimants on the remaining 50% of Rs.1,750/- per month or Rs.21,000/- per annum, an appropriate multiplier referable to the age of the mother at 47 years has to be adopted. As per SARLA VERMA & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION 2009 ACJ 1298 , the appropriate multiplier will be 13 and therefore, the loss of dependency of the parents would be Rs.2,73,000/-. While no further increase can be made towards any future prospects in view of the uncertainties of private practice, the possibility of any lesser dependence of the parents after the marriage of the deceased had he been alive, would not have been significant in the light of the deceased being the only son to his parents. 13. While no further increase can be made towards any future prospects in view of the uncertainties of private practice, the possibility of any lesser dependence of the parents after the marriage of the deceased had he been alive, would not have been significant in the light of the deceased being the only son to his parents. 13. Apart from the said loss of dependency of Rs.2,73,000/-, the claimants will be entitled to reasonable sums towards loss of estate and funeral expenses quantified at Rs.5,000/- each as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1), while the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,500/- each under those heads. Therefore, the claimants will be entitled to another Rs.5,000/-, which should also take care of any other pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages to which the claimants are entitled. 14. Therefore, the compensation should be enhanced by Rs.1,13,000/- in addition to Rs.1,70,000/- already awarded and in view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid by the corporation, it can be restricted to 6% per annum, while proportionate costs should also follow suit. 15. In the result, the award in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 26.07.2002, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The cross-objections are allowed, accordingly, in part and the appeal is dismissed. No costs.