JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. With the consent of all counsel, the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. CMA Nos.1437/2004, 1438/2004 and MACMA No. 1638/2008 are filed against the judgments and decrees dated 22-10-2003 passed in MVOP Nos.966/1998, 922/1998 and 973/98 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. 3. The facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as under: On 28-9-1998 at about 11 AM, the deceased Kambampati Chinnaiah @ Chinna (MVOP No.973/98), Guntur David Anand (MVOP No.966/1998) and Miriyala Seshagiri Rao (MVOP No.922/1998) were proceeding towards Narasaraopet side in a tanker bearing No. ADF 8725 on paying fare amount. When the said tanker reached Nerella vagu, the driver of the said tanker drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without hearing the caution and request made by the inmates of the said tanker and drove it through the said stream. It is stated that at that time vagu was over flowing due to cyclone floods and due to pressure of water, the tanker was thrown away by the water flow. Because of the said accident, three persons died and a case in Cr.No.114/1998 was registered under 304-A IPC against the driver of the tanker. The said claim petitions were contested by the owner of the vehicle and insurer of the said vehicle. 4. The owner of the vehicle, Guntur District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd., represented by its General Manager, Vadlamudi, Guntur District in their counter stated that they are maintaining a number of tankers to procure raw milk from several villages and supply them to consumers after processing them at Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi of Guntur District. It is stated that they have their own rules and regulations dealing with the drivers and said vehicles were registered as goods vehicles with proper permits from the Registering Authority, RTA, Guntur. It is contended that there was no place for any outsiders to get into the vehicle and that they neither authorised nor consented their drivers to carry any outsider in the milk tanker. Several instructions and circulars were issued to the drivers of the vehicles not to allow strangers to board their vehicles. It is contended that there was no place for any outsiders to get into the vehicle and that they neither authorised nor consented their drivers to carry any outsider in the milk tanker. Several instructions and circulars were issued to the drivers of the vehicles not to allow strangers to board their vehicles. It is stated that since the driver of the vehicle has violated the rules and regulations issued by them, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants since it was the driver who committed breach of trust and responsible for the death of the deceased. They further denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further stated that the deceased themselves were responsible for the death of the deceased as they boarded the goods vehicle when there were floods at the cause way of Nerelavagu. 5. Applications were filed by the first respondent to implead the driver of the offending tanker as third respondent and the same were allowed on 11-4-2000. 6. The first respondent .ie., the owner of the vehicle filed additional counter stating that the driver alone was responsible for the accident as he acted contrary to the rules framed and that they have imposed a punishment of lowering the pay and also took steps to recover an amount of Rs. 74900/- towards damages caused to the milk tanker. 7. The second respondent-insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petitions and also averments made by the first respondent in their counter. According to them, the deceased in all the cases were unauthorized passengers traveling in the said vehicle and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues in all the MVOPs. (1). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk van bearing No. ADF 8725? (2). Whether the petitioner are entitled to compensation and if so what amount? (3). To what relief? 9. Though parties in all the three OPs are different and the claim of the claimants in all the three claim petitions are different, the tribunal recorded the evidence in MVOP No.922/1998 since the accident is one and the same. The claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20. (3). To what relief? 9. Though parties in all the three OPs are different and the claim of the claimants in all the three claim petitions are different, the tribunal recorded the evidence in MVOP No.922/1998 since the accident is one and the same. The claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20. The respondents examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and also got marked Exs.B-1 to B-16. Exs.X-1 to X-2 were marked through the court. The driver of the vehicle was examined as C.W.1. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of accident taking place while the vehicle was crossing vagu. Initially, the driver was removed from service, but after his acquittal in the criminal case, he was reinstated into service with less ranking and less pay. P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined as eye witnesses to the accident. P.W.4 in his evidence stated that on the date of accident Nerella vagu was flowing in full swing and vehicles were parked on either side of the vagu. P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed that they advised C.W.1 ie., the driver of the vehicle not to cross the vagu on the chapta. In spite of it, he did not stop the vehicle but proceeded to cross the stream. Due to pressure of water, the tanker fell into the stream and three persons who were in the tanker were washed away and eight others who were also inside the vehicle were saved by P.Ws.4 and 5 others. Dead bodies were traced on the next day. P.W.5 corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 in all material aspects. Though P.Ws.4 and 5 were cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony. The driver of the vehicle who was examined as C.W.1 also deposed that he took the tanker through vagu and after covering half of vagu water came with force and vehicle was dragged to a distance resulting in the vehicle falling down. He seems to have come out from the door of the tanker and with a support of the tree he rescued himself. However, he tries to throw blame on the police constable by saying that vehicle was crossed at the instance of the said police constable who was one of the inmates of the vehicle who died in the said accident. However, he tries to throw blame on the police constable by saying that vehicle was crossed at the instance of the said police constable who was one of the inmates of the vehicle who died in the said accident. Though the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the deceased themselves are to be blamed for getting into the vehicle and forcing the driver to drive the vehicle, the said argument has no legs to stand in view of the independent evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. The version of C.W.1 is an after thought and is brought into existence only to get over the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. Therefore, the oral evidence on record coupled with Exs.A-1,A-2, and A-4 would clearly disclose that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tanker. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the driver of the said vehicle acted contrary to the circulars issued under Ex.B-15 to the effect that the drivers should not allow the passengers into milk tankers. The said circulars were endorsed by all the drivers of the appellant union. Ex.B-15 is a circular issued to all drivers and Ex.B-16 is the acknowledgment made by them. On the basis of Exs.B-15 and B-16, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the owner of the vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation and that Master is not vicariously liable to the negligent act of his servant as he has acted in breach of regulations issued by the Union. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the liability of Master would arise even when the servant acted contrary to the express instructions and not to the benefit of the master. They contended that the liability of Master would arise when a tort was committed by the servant more so when it committed in the course of his employment. This Court in United Insurance CO. Ltd v. Gouri Rajubai, 2001 ACJ 281 (AP) held that even if the circulars were issued by the owner of the vehicle, still the owner cannot escape the liability for the reason the owner authorised the driver to drive the lorry for company's business on the relevant date. This Court in United Insurance CO. Ltd v. Gouri Rajubai, 2001 ACJ 281 (AP) held that even if the circulars were issued by the owner of the vehicle, still the owner cannot escape the liability for the reason the owner authorised the driver to drive the lorry for company's business on the relevant date. If the driver over-stepped the authority in the course of his employment, the owner cannot escape the liability for the wrongful act of his servant insofar as third parties/unauthorized passengers are concerned on the ground that the owner had not actually authorised to do particular act in the manner in which it was done. When once the owner authorised the driver to drive the vehicle and when he over-stepped his limits in allowing the persons to board the vehicle, the owner cannot escape the liability to compensate the inmates of the vehicle. 11. In view of the above decision, it is clear that the owner of the vehicle cannot escape the liability of paying compensation to the claimant and the master is liable for the acts of his servant even if he acted contrary to the instructions. 12 The legal position with regard to liability of insurer to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased who traveled as gratuitous passenger in goods vehicle is no more res integra in view of the following judgments. 13. A three Judge bench of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ (1)(SC), while overruling the earlier decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), held as follows. ".. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the preexisted expression injury to any person is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpals case, therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury." 14. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbayamma and others, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC) the Supreme Court held as under: "Although the owner of the goods or his authorised representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the Legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time of contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people." 15. In National Insurance Col Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharathamma and Others, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) the apex Court while dealing with cases where the claimants were traveling in a goods carriage held that the insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the claim made by the claimants and that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured for passengers traveling in a goods carriage. 16 In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati and Others, 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC) the Supreme Court held as under: "The difference in the language of goods vehicle as appear in the old Act and goods carriage in the Act is of significance. 16 In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati and Others, 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC) the Supreme Court held as under: "The difference in the language of goods vehicle as appear in the old Act and goods carriage in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that the legislative intend was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression in addition to passengers as contained in definition of goods vehicle in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used is goods carriage is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates the compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle. The proviso makes it further clear that the compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under Work-mens Compensation Act, 1923 (in short W.C. Act). There is no reference to any passenger in goods carriage. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability there for." 17. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani and others, 2009 ACJ 925 (SC), and in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Kunam Dhanalakshmi and others, 2012 (3) ALT 144 . 18. From the above, it is clear that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker and the deceased who were traveling in the said vehicle are unauthorized passengers. In view of the above judgments of the Apex Court, the owner of the vehicle cannot escape the liability for paying the compensation to the claimant. 19. In view of the above judgments of the Apex Court, the owner of the vehicle cannot escape the liability for paying the compensation to the claimant. 19. A faint attempt is being made by the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that in view of the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, the owner is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident did not happen due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the said vehicle. It is well settled principle of law that proceedings before the criminal court are of no help in determining the payment of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as the said Act is a beneficial legislation and strict rules of evidence will not apply to the cases which are tried before the tribunal. Therefore, mere acquittal of a driver in a criminal case will not exonerate the owner from paying the compensation. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would clearly show that it was the driver of the tanker who was responsible for the said accident. In view of the above discussion, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 20. In CMA No.1437/2004, the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 6,61,000/- towards loss of dependency, estate etc., for the death of one Guntur David Anand. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,97,564/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and the first respondent-owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the said amount. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly seeks reduction in quantum of compensation. 21. The deceased was working as Lab Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Rompicharla. He was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs. 2,800/- per month. P.W.7 is the Headmaster of Zilla Parishad High School, who produced pay acquaintance register of 1995 to 1999, which is marked as Ex.A-19 and also pay bill register marked as Ex.A-20. P.W.8 is the Junior Assistant working in the office of the Zilla Parishad, Guntur who produced service register of the deceased which was maintained in the said office and marked as Ex.X-2. The said register discloses the age of the deceased as 23 years by the date of accident. P.W.8 is the Junior Assistant working in the office of the Zilla Parishad, Guntur who produced service register of the deceased which was maintained in the said office and marked as Ex.X-2. The said register discloses the age of the deceased as 23 years by the date of accident. After deducting ?rd towards personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 22,092/- per year. Applying suitable multiplier, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,75,564/- towards loss of dependency. The tribunal further awarded Rs. 22,000/- toward loss of estate; Rs. 10000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs. 3,97,564/- which in my view appears to be just and reasonable warranting no interference from this court. 22. In CMA No.1438/2004, the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- towards loss of dependency, estate etc., for the death of one Miriyala Seshagiri Rao. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,21,980/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and the first respondent-owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the said amount. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks reduction of the amount, in view of the evidence available on record and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The deceased was working as Police Constable, and was earning Rs. 4,807/- per month. P.W.6 is the Senior Assistant in the District Police Office, Guntur, who produced pay acquaintance register and service register which are marked as Exs.P-16 and Ex.A-17. As per service register, the date of birth of the deceased was 2-3-1951 and the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 47 years six months twenty six days. After deducting ?rd towards personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 38,460/- per year. Applying suitable multiplier, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,99,980/- towards loss of dependency. The tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- toward loss of estate; Rs. 10000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs. 5,21,980/- which in my view appears to be just and reasonable warranting no interference from this court. 23. 4,99,980/- towards loss of dependency. The tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- toward loss of estate; Rs. 10000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs. 5,21,980/- which in my view appears to be just and reasonable warranting no interference from this court. 23. In MACMA No.1638/20084, the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of dependency, estate etc., for the death of one Kambampati Chinnaiah @ Chinna. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and the first respondent-owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the said amount. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks reduction of the amount, in view of the evidence available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The deceased was working as an agricultural cooli and was getting Rs. 75/- per day. The tribunal while taking the earnings at Rs. 1200/- per month, age of the deceased as 45 years deducted ?rd towards personal and living expenses and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 9,600/- per years. Applying suitable multiplier, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,800/- as compensation. The tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- toward loss of estate; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs. 1,46,800/- which in my view is just and reasonable. 24. In view of the above discussion, there are no merits in all the appeals and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.