JUDGMENT :- 1. These two Appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company. By consent of the parties, both the Appeals are taken together as it arises out of the same accident and they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the First Appeal (CMA. No.317 of 2006), the Insurance Company is aggrieved against the grant of award of compensation to the deceased on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. According to the Claimants in C.M.A. No.317 of 2006 arises out of M.C.O.P. NO.1715 of 2003 the deceased Javid Basha was traveling in the tempo van along with the chicken, as the owner of the goods and when the vehicle met with an accident, he died. They would claim that since the deceased traveled in the vehicle as a owner, accompanying the goods in a transport vehicle, as per the Policy condition, owner is covered by the Policy and for his death the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 4. The Insurance company has come forward with this Appeal questioning their liability on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that Javid Basha was the owner of the goods. In the absence of any evidence to show that Javid Basha was the owner of the goods, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. According to the insurance Company the deceased ought not to have trave3lled in the goods vehicle as an employee of the owner of the goods and therefore the Insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability. 5. As far as the second case (C.M.A. No.778 of 2008) is concerned, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the Appeal against the award granted in favour of the Claimants for death of their son Palani who was also traveling in the transport vehicle on the ground that he was neither owner of the vehicle nor the goods. Whereas, the lower Court has considered him as Collie which is not the case put forward by the Claimants and therefore, the award granted to them under law is not liable to be paid by the Insurance Company. 6. Whereas, the lower Court has considered him as Collie which is not the case put forward by the Claimants and therefore, the award granted to them under law is not liable to be paid by the Insurance Company. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants in both the Appeals would only contend that as far as C.M.A. No.317 of 2006, which arose clue to the death of Javid Basha is concerned, he would very clearly state that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, that the deceased was traveling as the owner of the chick and hen. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically stated that he has advanced money as the parent of the deceased to conduct the chick and hen business and the lower Court also has categorically given a finding that in so far as deceased Javid Basha is concerned, he is the owner of the goods. The driver was examined in both the cases. He would also contend that in the vehicle, only these two persons died and only two claims are made and as per the Policy both the owners will be covered. In any view of the matter even if any one of them is not construed as the owner, in the policy there is a coverage for non-fare paying passenger for which premium has been paid for one person, so that would also cover the other deceased. It is also further made clear by them that atleast he was traveling in the vehicle either as owner or representative of the owner of the goods for the up-keep or the maintenance of the goods. Even if he is treated as Coolie, since premium is specifically paid for Coolie upto 7 members, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, in both the cases the Claimants would only contend that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Especially in C.M.A. No.778 of 2008, though the lower Court did not accept the theory of ownership and concluded that the decease as a Coolie as well as for non-fare paying passenger, definitely, in both the Appeals, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Heard both parties. Especially in C.M.A. No.778 of 2008, though the lower Court did not accept the theory of ownership and concluded that the decease as a Coolie as well as for non-fare paying passenger, definitely, in both the Appeals, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Heard both parties. The short point for consideration in both the Appeals are whether the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the accident involving goods carrier vehicle for the owner, Collie, non-fare paying passenger? 8. The facts that are relevant in these Appeals are that the vehicle in question is a Eicher Mitsubishi tempo transport vehicle. As per the FIR, the vehicle was proceeding from Kaveripattinam to madras. The vehicle was loaded with chick and hen along with the driver and two persons and two persons, who are deceased, were also traveling in the vehicle. Totally five persons were also traveling in the vehicle. According to the Claimants, two persons who died in the accident are the owners of the chick and then which was being transported. The accident took place because of the vehicle dashing against a stationary bus. FIR is only against the driver of the tempo. Therefore, the Claimants would contend that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the accident causing the death of the deceased. These facts are not in dispute. 9. The question which is now put forth was how far the Claimants have proved that the deceased are the owners of the goods or in any way they are liable to claim the amount from the Insurance company. The Insurance Company do not admit the theory of ownership put forth by the Claimants. 10. In this background, if we now analyse the evidence in C.M.A. No.317 of 2006, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, He has deposed that he has given money to his son to conduct the business. The deceased has studied upto IX standard and further in his evidence he has stated that during the relevant point of time the deceased was not studying and he was only doing the business of buying the chick and hen from the farm and selling it in the market at Madras and thereby he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. P.W.2, one Aarif who was examined as eye witness would say that both the deceased persons were traveling in the vehicle as owners of the goods. 11. In C.M.A. No.778 of 2008 P.W.2, one Asath who was examined as eye witness would say that both the deceased persons were traveling in the vehicle as owners of the goods. Therefore, in both the Appeals atleast both the collies who were traveling in the vehicle with the deceased were examined as eye witnesses. 12. In C.M.A. No.317 of 2006, the lower Court has categorically came to a conclusion by considering the evidence of P.W.1, the father of the deceased and P.W.2, the eye witness that the deceased was traveling as the owner of the goods. In any view of the matter, it is established that the chick and hen alone were transported. Therefore in C.M.A. NO.317 of 2006, there is a clear finding that the deceased is the owner of the goods. 13. The Insurance Company has examined a witness at R.W.1. He would go to the extent of stating that the vehicle did not have the chick and hen at all, which a contrary to the FIR itself but in the cross-examination he would admit it. Therefore, the intention of R.W.1 was, as rightly pointed out by the court below, to somehow or other disentitle the claimants from getting compensation. No other independent witness has been examined contraverting the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in C.M.A. No.317 of 2006 to establish that the deceased is the owner of the property, that he was traveling as the owner of the property. The evidence of R.W.1 would only establish that his contention or version is not correct. 14. Therefore in C.M.A. No.317 of 2006 as rightly found by the Court below the deceased Javid Basha was traveling only as the owner of the property and I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding. If he was travelling as owner of the property, even as per the admission of R.W.1, under the Policy, the owner of the goods traveling in a goods vehicle, for the purpose of safety, would be covered under the Policy. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly held that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this question is answered against the Appellant-Insurance Company. 15. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly held that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this question is answered against the Appellant-Insurance Company. 15. When we analyse the case in C.M.A. No.778 of 2009, concerning the death of Palani, no doubt, in that case also P.W.1, the father of the deceased would contend that he was a +2 student and only in the vacation, he indulged in the business. It is further deposed that he continued his studies and his mark sheet also would prove that during the relevant point of time, he continued to be a student and there is no plausible explanation given by P.W.1 that he was the owner of the goods. At the same time, P.W.2, the other coolie who was also an eye-witness and travelling in the vehicle deposed that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as the owner or the person accompanying the goods. The fact remains that this person was accompanying the goods, namely, the chick and hen. When we analyse this aspect, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants pointed out that under the Policy a sum of Rs.75/- has been received as premium under the heading NFPP-1 which means Non-Fare Paying Passenger-1. Therefore, the Policy covers in respect of any death or accident for a person who is travelling in a vehicle, even though he was not the owner of the goods but as a non-fare paying passenger. 16. If we read the IMTr-37, in the Policy condition, it would clearly say what is the legal liability to non-fare paying passenger who are not employees of the Insurer. It clearly states as follows: “IMT 37. A. Legal liability to Non Fare Paying Passengers who are not employees of the Insured (Commercial Vehicles Only)- In consideration of the paying 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 Accident Act, 1855) in respect of death 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) charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. (b) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or the other being carried on or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from vehicle insured described in the Schedule of this Policy. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy.” 17. From the reading of the condition, it is very clear that the Insurance Company has agreed to indemnify on the death or injury to any person either directly connected with the journey in one form or the other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from vehicle or also the charterer or representative of the charterer of the truck. This category does not include the owner, coolie nor include the employee. But any representative of the owner or any other person travelling along with the goods would also be covered under this Policy. One person is covered under this condition. In fact, for 7 Coolies separate premium also has been received to an extent of Rs.175/- 18. Therefore, admittedly in the vehicle, the driver and two Coolies were covered. There is no other claim made because there is no injury caused to the driver or the two Coolies who traveled. As far as the other two persons are concerned, one is the owner of the goods. That is also proved. Palani, the deceased, though may not be called as a Coolie, he was a person traveling along with the goods as a owner or as a representative of the goods. Even otherwise, since extra premium has been received in this case, covering a non-fare paying passenger, the Policy would cover the deceased person also and the Insurance Company would be held liable to pay the compensation. 19. In any view of the matter, since eye witness has been examined, who wee traveling along with the deceased and merely because, the deceased re students, it cannot be said that they could not have traveling along with the goods. 19. In any view of the matter, since eye witness has been examined, who wee traveling along with the deceased and merely because, the deceased re students, it cannot be said that they could not have traveling along with the goods. Therefore, once the court comes to a conclusion that the deceased was traveling as a person along with the goods, even though he is not a owner, as a representative of the owner, for the safety of the goods, coupled with the fact the premium has been paid for one person including for a non-fare paying passenger, definitely the Insurance company cannot say that they are not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore in C.M.A. No.778 of 2008 also, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, the Insurance Company is definitely liable to pay the compensation for the deceased not as a Collie but as a representative of the owner of the goods or as a non-fare paying passenger. Either way the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 20. Once when the liability is established that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, we have to analyse the question of quantum. 21. In C.M.A. No.317 of 2006, the deceased was aged about 18 years. He studied upto IX standard. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the father of the deceased, he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He lower Court has taken into consideration Rs.3,000/-as his income per month and after deducting 1/3 amount towards his Personal Expenses, Rs.2,000/- was fixed as his actual contribution to the family per month. The lower Court has rightly found that no age proof of the deceased is filed, however when considering the age of the deceased, it came to the conclusion that the mother should be aged atleast 40 years, applied the correct multiplier of 15 and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 15) which in my opinion is fair, reasonable and correct. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for Love and Affection, which is also fair, reasonable and correct. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head Loss of Happiness. Unfortunately, this will not arise when once award is granted for love and affection and hence, this amount has to be eschewed and it is eschewed accordingly. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head Loss of Happiness. Unfortunately, this will not arise when once award is granted for love and affection and hence, this amount has to be eschewed and it is eschewed accordingly. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for Funeral Expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards Transportation Charges, which are fair, reasonable and correct. Hence, the Claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,71,000/- a compensation as against the sum of Rs.3,86,000/- awarded by the lower Court. The modified compensation awarded to the Claimants are as under: For Loss of Income: Rs.3,60,000/- For Loss of Love and Affection: Rs. 5,000/-for Transportation Charges : Rs. 1,000/-for Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Totally: Rs.3,71,000/- 22. In the result, C.M.A. No.317 of 2006 is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.3,86,000/- to Rs.3,71,000/-. 23. As far as the C.M.A. NO.778 of 2008 is considered, though a finding is given that the deceased was a Coolie, it is a clear from the records that he was a student as his certificates have been produced in the Court. The lower Court has taken it into consideration and fixed the income at Rs.2,500/- per month which is reasonable. After deducting 1/3 towards his Personal Expenses, taking into consideration the age of the parents, who are the Claimants, the correct multiplier to be adopted would be only 15. But unfortunately, the lower Court has adopted the multiplier of 16 which is not correct. Therefore, when we apply the correct multiplier of 15, the compensation amount works out to Rs.1,667/- (Rs.2,500/- Rs.833/- = Rs.1,667/-) rounded of to Rs.1,660/- which is the loss of income per month. Applying the multiplier 15, the compensation amount works out to Rs.2,98,000/- (Rs.1,660/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.2,98,800/-), which is fair, reasonable and correct. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards Love and Affection, Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation, which is fair, reasonable and correct. Hence, totally a sum of Rs.3,15,800/- is awarded as compensation to the Claimants in C./M.A. No.317 of 2006 as against the compensation Rs.3,37,000/- awarded by the Court below. The details of the modified compensation are as under: for Loss of Income : Rs.2,98,000/- for Loss of Love and Affection : Rs. 10,000/-for Transportation Charges : Rs. 2,000/- for Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Totally: Rs. 3,15,800/- 24. The details of the modified compensation are as under: for Loss of Income : Rs.2,98,000/- for Loss of Love and Affection : Rs. 10,000/-for Transportation Charges : Rs. 2,000/- for Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Totally: Rs. 3,15,800/- 24. In the result C.M.A. No.778 of 2008 is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.3,37,000/- to Rs.3,15,800/-. 25. It is now represented that the entire amount has been deposited by the Appellant- Insurance Company. The Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount along w3ith the accrued interest. The Claimants are also permitted to withdraw their share of compensation as determined in their Appeal, as apportioned by the Court below. 26. In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed. No costs, Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.