Judgment : The claimants who are the father, wife and the mother of one Janaki Seshi Reddy who died in a road accident that took place on 30-4-2001 preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the award dt. 8-12-2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole in OP No.479/2002. 2. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) was filed by the appellants herein claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs against the respondents 1 and 2 in OP ie., the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The facts in issue are as under: On 30-4-2001 at about 8 PM the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing No. APJ 3766 with a load of oranges in order to sell them in a fruit market at Hyderabad. When the lorry reached the outskirts of Peddavoor, a village in Nalgonda District, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a neem tree, situated on the left side of the road. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous crush injuries and died on the spot. The cleaner also sustained injuries. 4. The first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. 5. The second respondent filed its counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. According to them, the insurance company lis not liable to pay any compensation since the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Further, the age, income and avocation of the deceased is also disputed. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.APJ 3766? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. In support of their claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the insurance company, they examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B-2. 8. Heard Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri R. Venkat Ram Reddy, the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company. 7. In support of their claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the insurance company, they examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B-2. 8. Heard Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri R. Venkat Ram Reddy, the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company. In spite of service of notice on the respondent No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle, no representation is made on his behalf. 9. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and awarded a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the first respondent only as the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The tribunal further held that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was doing business in fruits and that he was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods. But however, observed that since the claimants flailed to prove the income and avocation of the deceased, he can be treated as doing some business in fruits. The tribunal also held that the deceased being the son of the owner of the vehicle was travelling in the said lorry accompanying the owner of the goods and since Shaik Abdul Khader remained ex parte, he was declared as the owner of the vehicle. 10. The finding of the tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry has become final as the same has not been challenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer of the said vehicle. Similarly the finding of the tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the owner of the vehicle is also not challenged by the owner of the vehicle. 11. Assailing the said award, the claimants filed the present appeal contending that the second respondent-insurance company alone is liable to pay compensation and not the owner of the vehicle. 11. Assailing the said award, the claimants filed the present appeal contending that the second respondent-insurance company alone is liable to pay compensation and not the owner of the vehicle. According to them, the deceased was travelling in goods vehicle along with a load of oranges and as such the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that there is any amount of doubt with regard to the fact of the deceased travelling in the said vehicle as owner of goods. He would further contend that the contents of the first information report and the oral evidence are inconsistent with each other and hence it cannot be said that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods. It is contended on their behalf that the deceased is none other than the son of the owner of the vehicle and he was travelling in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passenger 13. The crucial question to be decided is whether the deceased was travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods and if so, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants? 14. Section 147 (1) (b)(i) of the Act (as amended by Central Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994) reads as under: "147. Requirements of Policies and limits of liability:- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) x x x x (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) — (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner o the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) x x x “ 15. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that by virtue of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act which came into effect from 14-11-1994, the owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle is considered to be a third party under the policy and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. A perusal of first information report which was pressed into service at the instance of the cleaner of the lorry would indicate that the deceased (Seshi Reddy) was described as the son of the owner of the vehicle. It may be relevant to mention here that the name of the owner of the vehicle as reflected in the insurance policy which is marked as Ex.B1 is Shaik Abdul Khader. Further, even in the claim petition the owner of the vehicle is shown as Shaik Abdul Khader. The said fact is not denied by either party to the proceedings. Coming to the inquest report and post mortem certificate which are produced on record as Exs.A-2 and A-3, the father’s name of the deceased was shown as “Malla Reddy”. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the deceased was the son of the owner of the lorry appears to be incorrect. If really, the version of the cleaner that the deceased was the son of the owner of the lorry is correct, nothing prevented the insurance company or the owner of the vehicle to lead evidence to that effect when the contents in Exs.A-1, A-2 and B-1 speak otherwise. No efforts have been made to examine the cleaner or the driver of the lorry who could be the best persons to speak to the correctness of the version given in the first information report. Further, the lorry owner did not even enter the box to speak to the ownership of the vehicle. The cleaner of the lorry who gave the report may not be knowing the relationship between the deceased and the owner of the goods. The contents therein are totally contrary to oral evidence and other documents. Further, the version of cleaner in the inquest report is contrary to what he has been said in the First Information Report. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the contention of the insurance company that the deceased is the son of the owner of the vehicle is not accepted. 17. Further, the version of cleaner in the inquest report is contrary to what he has been said in the First Information Report. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the contention of the insurance company that the deceased is the son of the owner of the vehicle is not accepted. 17. P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased deposed that two years prior to the date of giving evidence his son purchased battaiva (orange) fruits in Gottipadia gardens and was going to Hyderabad to sell the same in the fruit market and that the lorry met with an accident at Peddavoora village in Nalgonda District. A suggestion that the deceased was not doing any business in fruits was denied by P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined to prove that the deceased purchased Battavia fruits in Gottipadia gardens. According to him, the deceased came in the lorry along with battavia gruits, picked him up and both of them were proceeding to Hyderabad when the accident took place. It has been elicited in the cross-examination that himself, the deceased, driver and the cleaner were present in the lorry at the time of accident. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would indicate that the deceased engaged a lorry, and loaded the same with orange fruits for the purpose of transporting them to Hyderabad. The said aspect gets support from the inquest report. The cleaner by name Pammi Rosi Reddy who is said to have given the first information report was examined as eye-witness at the time of inquest along with others. The gist of statements of eye-witnesses and panch witnesses recorded during inquest is reflected in Column XV of the inquest report. A reading of Column XV of the inquest report shows that the deceased purchased oranges and after loading them in a lorry bearing No.APJ 3766, the deceased along with driver, cleaner and another were proceeding to Hyderabad when the said accident took place. The contents of the inquest report which was marked as Ex.A-2 was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. From the above, it is clear that the cleaner gave a go bye to his earlier version made in the First Information Report. Therefore, no credence can be given to his version. 18. The contents of the inquest report which was marked as Ex.A-2 was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. From the above, it is clear that the cleaner gave a go bye to his earlier version made in the First Information Report. Therefore, no credence can be given to his version. 18. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony with regard to the deceased travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods. It is not in dispute that there were no other persons travelling in the said vehicle along with their goods. The evidence on record is very clear to the effect that the deceased hired the lorry and that the entire lorry was loaded with orange fruits. Therefore, the oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence ie.,Ex.A-2 would prima-facie establish that the deceased was not the son of the owner of the lorry but he was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of goods (oranges) to be sold in fruit market at Hyderabad. The tribunal erred in rejecting the plea of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods. In view of the discussion made above, it can safely be held that the deceased was travelling in the said lorry not as gratuitous passenger but as owner of the goods. Thus, the deceased being the owner of load of orange fruits carried in the said vehicle, the insurance company has statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimants when the existence of a valid policy as on the date of accident is not in dispute. 19. Coming to the amount of compensation awarded the tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased was held to be Rs.1,000/- per month. Thus, the annual loss of dependency would be Rs.12,000/-. The deceased being aged 25 years as per the inquest and post mortem reports, applying multiplier “17” the tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.2,04,000/-. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The finding with regard to amount of compensation being just and reasonable warrants no interference from this court. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount as awarded by the tribunal to the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Seshi Reddy. No order as to costs.