JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed impugning the Order/Award dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.P No.70 of 2005 by the 2nd respondent, owner of the tractor and trailer AP 15 V 6453 & 6467 among driver no other than the owner of a saw mill and insurer of the claim filed by the parents, unmarried major sister and minor brother and minor sisters of the deceased bachelor by name T.Raju, for the claim filed of Rs.5,00,000/- since awarded by the tribunal of Rs.3,16,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, by exonerating the 3rd respondent insurer and fixing the liability against respondents 1 and 2 as unsustainable. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during hearing by counsel for appellant are that the tribunal erred in granting such a huge compensation; that the tribunal should have seen the deceased was not a passenger but an employee in the saw mill and engaged for transporting some wooden frames from saw mill and he was travelling in that connection and the insurer thereby liable to indemnify the risk and should have passed the award with joint liability on insurer also and hence to allow the appeal. 2(a) The 7th respondent to the appeal is the 1st respondent (in the claim petition) – driver of tractor and trailer-cum-owner of saw mill, having contested before the tribunal remained absent, despite served. Hence, taken as heard to decide on merits. 2 (b) It is the contention of the insurer-8th respondent (R3 in the claim petition) that the tribunal was just in exonerating the insurer for the deceased unauthorized passenger of the tractor and trailer and not a coolie much less travelling in connection with loading and unloading but for travelling in the goods carriage for going to Hanuman temple, Kondagattu and met with an accident while returning there from and thereby, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 2 (c) Whereas it is the contention of the counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 (claimants in the claim petition) that the tribunal was just in awarding quantum of compensation but for not fastening the liability on the insurer also for the deceased travelling as Hamali for loading and unloading apart from a third party at the time of the accident to consider the same by fixing the liability on the insurer also and for increasing the rate of interest. 2(d) Perused the material on record. The parties are being referred to as arrayed before the tribunal. 3. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the award of the tribunal exonerating the insurer is unjust so also the quantum of compensation and rate of interest and if so it requires interference by this Court while sitting in this appeal and with what observations and to what extent? 2. To what result? 4. Point No.1: 4 (a) The fact that the accident was occurred while the deceased along with others were travelling by sitting in the trailer propelled to the tractor, driven by 1st respondent on the fateful day i.e., 05.09.2004 and the deceased fell down from the trailer and was run over under the wheels is not in dispute for purpose of the appeal. It clearly proves the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, apart from any contributory negligence of deceased. 4 (b) Coming to the liability of the insurer, and status of the deceased while travelling in the vehicle concerned, among Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2 Charge sheet placed reliance by the claimants, said FIR is based on the report given by 1st claimant – father of the deceased by name Durgaiah i.e., PW1 showing the age of deceased about 25 years, un-married, that the deceased was working in the saw mill of 1st respondent, 1st respondent also was the driver of tractor and trailer and they went to have darshan of Lord Hanuman Temple, Kondagattu and while they were returning the accident was occurred due to his rash and negligent driving from which, the deceased Raju fell down from the trailer and the vehicle ran over the deceased and immediately while shifting him to hospital, he breathed the last. 4 (c) PW-2 one of the persons travelling in the tractor along with the deceased also deposed the same but for stating they were coolies. When the very FIR and the charge sheet, that too, FIR is on the report of PW1 (the 1st claimant and father of the deceased) speaks that the deceased and others were returning as passengers in the goods carriage the trailer propelled to the tractor from the temple of Hanuman, Kondagattu, the accident was occurred and thus the deceased was traveling as unauthorized passenger as contended by the insurer having placed reliance on said documents vide decision in NIC Vs. Savithri Devi ( 2013 (11) SCC 554 ) at para No.11 referring to earlier Apex Court’s expression in NIC Vs. Rattani ( 2009 (2) SCC 75 ). Even the decision referred by the claimants in Badavath Janna Bai Vs. Afsari Begum ( 2013 (1) ALD 622 ) para No.13 refers said expression of Ratani’s case (supra) in saying “the tribunal would be entitled to look into the allegations made in the FIR when it has been made as part of the claim petition though ordinarily allegations made in the FIR would not be admissible in evidence per se”. 4 (d) Coming to the claim petition, it is averred as if the deceased was helper-cum-labourer in the saw mill of 1st respondent – R.Srinivas (driver of tractor and trailer) and was travelling as labourer while returning after unloading of the wooden frames at Jagityal to Bejjanki and in the way visited the deity of Hanuman at Kondagattu and while proceeding, the accident was occurred near vagu after crossing Sathrajupalli village due to 1st respondent’s rash and negligent driving from which the deceased fell down and backside left wheel of the vehicle ran over and shifted to Siricilla Government Hospital and was succumbed to the injuries before reaching hospital in the midway. 4 (e) In the claim petition as well as DW1 and PW2 evidence above attempted explanation introduced with after thought saying they were returning after unloading and in the way had darshan of deity and returning. 4 (e) In the claim petition as well as DW1 and PW2 evidence above attempted explanation introduced with after thought saying they were returning after unloading and in the way had darshan of deity and returning. Even Ex.B2-policy page No.2 shows premium of Rs.125/- paid additionally and covered WC to employees – 5, if at all the deceased was an employee under tractor owner-2nd respondent the risk can be covered and not for the employee of the tractor driver – 1st respondent as owner of saw mill. Thus, from that so called explanation introduced of the deceased employee of saw mill owner and not tractor owner to cover the risk to say only unauthorized passenger. It is also from own say, it is not even while proceeding with the wooden lags or frames for unloading, the accident is occurred but for after returning by traveling. Had the accident occurred from the negligence of the 1st respondent – driver, to the deceased unauthorized passenger while in the tractor and trailer, the Ex.B-2 policy was not cover the risk, but the facts supra show death and injuries caused death are not for fall, but thereafter from the vehicle run over him. Thus, to that extent, after fall, the deceased was third party and the vehicle when run over the third party, the Ex.B2 policy covers the risk. Once he is a third party to the vehicle, there is a statutory liability to the third party under Section 147 read with Section 149 from the policy in force read with Section 168 of the Act for the insurer to indemnify. In this regard the legal position is very clear from the Judgments of the Madras High Court in ThoznihalarTransport Company V. Valliammal ( 1990 ACJ 201 (Madras), A.Subrahmanian V. Mani ( 1990 ACJ 37 (Madras), of the Delhi High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd V. Savitri Devi ( 1991 ACJ 991 ), of the Bombay High Court, Panaji bench in I.O.C V. Edward B.Juj.R (1995 ACJ 1106)and another judgment of the Delhi High Court in KamarV. Satbir Singh (2006 ACJ 789)and also of our High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kurva Yejji.M ( 2007(2) ALT 366 ). Ltd V. Savitri Devi ( 1991 ACJ 991 ), of the Bombay High Court, Panaji bench in I.O.C V. Edward B.Juj.R (1995 ACJ 1106)and another judgment of the Delhi High Court in KamarV. Satbir Singh (2006 ACJ 789)and also of our High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kurva Yejji.M ( 2007(2) ALT 366 ). In all these decisions the principle in one voice say that but for difference on facts in some cases a passenger in a bus upto a destination when stopped from the ticket to the journey expired from that moment, he is not passenger but third party and even while moving fell down and there from run over is considered to be a third party and the other facts in goods vehicle traveling without right and when fell down lost the status of traveler and thereafter when run over is a third party for the insurer to be made liable. From this analogy coming to the composite negligence of the deceased concerned, it is 25% to assess as but for his negligence also along with of driver of 25% also while sitting to fell down and but for the fall, the accident could not be and the other 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry of the 1st respondent as had he been stopped the moment he fell down, he could not be crushed under the wheels, thereby the respondents 1 and 2 from the Ex.B-1 policy marked by consent covering the risk of the third party are liable to pay compensation for 50% and the owner for remaining 25% and for the remaining 25% of the deceased self negligence to suffer. 4 (f) The Insurance policy when covers the risk of the third party, the deceased since he was succumbed to the injuries within no time lapse while shifting to hospital immediately after the occurrence that was not by fall but by trailer ran over him and the Ex.P3-Post Mortem Report is also crystal clear in showing from page No.2 of multiple abrasions and crush injuries from the trailer run over which include fractures over left shoulder, left side and right side chest, front of neck, and also fracture of ribs. Thus, when the death was the result of trailer ran over on the deceased by the time the deceased was not traveling in the trailer but being a third party on the road while the vehicle is in use to the extent that from Ex.B2-policy the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured, 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle that was driven by the 1st respondent subject to the valid policy and the contention of the insurer in total negating of liability in the factual matrix is untenable. The tribunal did not appreciate these facts in totally exonerating the insurer, that too without proper finding, by a stray sentence in the award at page No.10, para No.12 end saying the 3rd respondent -Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for passengers. The Ex.A6 MVI report shows the driving license of RW1-R1 driver was expired. However, it is the evidence of R1- RW-1 (from Ex.B1) that there is a valid driving license No.4840 of 1996 issued by RTA, Karimnagar on 04.09.1996 with badge No.17771998 and the non transport LMV, MCWG, TR clause of vehicles valid till 03.09.2016 and transport HGV, HPV, LMV, TR valid till 15.10.2007. Whereas Ex.A4-MVI report filed by claimant that also placed reliance by the insurer from the particulars of column No.17 speaks that said DL No.4840 of 1996 of RTA, Karimnagar was valid upto 05.05.2001 and expired thereafter. However, there is nothing to show such expiry on 05.05.2001 and renewal after the alleged accident dated 05.09.2004 for believing, by said cross examination of insurer of RW.1-R1 driver, who deposed in support of the given facts. Thus, there is nothing to say driver got no valid driving license. When such is the case, the tribunal not properly discussed the same in exonerating the insurer as concluded. 4 (g) From the above, the liability of R1 to R3 is 50% and the liability of R1 and R2 is 25%, which comes to the following: The earnings of the deceased shown as working in the saw mill of R1, at Rs.3,000/- per month and there is nothing to take every month Rs.1,000/- as over time. Even as per LathaWadhwa Vs. Even as per LathaWadhwa Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 2001 SC 3218 ), the minimum earnings of Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken and 4 years after said expression, the accident took place on 05.09.2004 and by taking consideration of the cost of living index increase and prospective capacity of earning, it can be taken at Rs.3,400/- per month. The deceased since bachelor and among the claimants 5 in number but for claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents, the other claimants 3 to 6 are the children of claimant Nos.1 & 2 and not dependents on the deceased to consider thereby, if half deducted towards personal expenses of deceased as per the Apex Court’s expression in SarlaVerma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), it comes to Rs.1700/- per month = Rs.20,400/-per annum and the age of the mother of the unmarried deceased that is criteria shown of 45 years, the multiplier that is applicable as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra) is 14. Then, it comes to Rs.2,85,600/- + Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses + Rs.9,400/- towards loss of estate, in all it comes to Rs.3,20,000/-. Out of it, the respondents 1 to 3 jointly liable to pay Rs.1,60,000/-, the respondents 1 and 2 personally liable to pay Rs.80,000/- for the remaining amount of Rs.80,000/-is of the negligence of deceased for which the claimants are not entitled. 4(h) Coming to rate of interest, the tribunal awarded at 6% per annum which is too low as per the settled expression in TN Transport Vs. Raja Priya ( 2005 (6) SCC 236 )and Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh (2013 ACJ 1403) where 7.5% per annum awarded as just. Accordingly, pont-1 is answered. Point No.2 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum by reducing from Rs.3,16,500/-(Rupees three lakhs sixteen thousand five hundred only) and out of which the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) and respondents 1 and 2 further personally liable to pay Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization/ deposit with notice. The respondents are directed to pay or deposit said amounts of compensation, if not any of them already deposited any amount, out of it, for the remaining within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, failing which the claimants can execute and recover. There is no order as to costs. 6. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.