JUDGMENT Anis, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common award dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P. Nos. 511 of 1998 and 532 of 1998 respectively, which arise out of the same accident that occurred on 22.05.1996 at about 5.30 a.m. near Korlam village on N.H.5 road in Srikakulam District. 2. Petitioners in O.P. No. 511 of 1998 are the parents of one Nagula Simhachalam Behara and their case is that on 22.05.1996, their son engaged the 2nd respondent's van bearing registration No. AP16/W 1155 at Tekkali to transport his ropes and coir fibre articles to Kanchili and boarded into the van along with his goods and paid Rs. 10/- towards hire charges to its driver i.e. 1st respondent and he being the custodian of the said goods was travelling in the said van to go to Kanchili. When the said van reached near Korlam junction on N.H.5 road at about 5.30 a.m., the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without observing traffic rules and without blowing horn and with great speed, dashed the van against one stationed lorry bearing registration No. AP5/X 1197, as a result their son and some other passengers, who were travelling in the van, sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, their son along with others were admitted in Government Hospital, Sompeta where he succumbed to the injuries at about 1.10 p.m. on the same day. The Station House Officer, Baruva P.S. registered the same as a case in Crime No. 58 of 1996 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, filed the Charge sheet into the Court against the 1st respondent who was the driver of the said van. The petitioners spent Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the deceased Simhachalam Behara used to purchase and sell coir fibre articles at various shandies and get Rs. 100/- per day and maintain the petitioners and he was the sole breadwinner of the family of the petitioners. The deceased Simhachalam Behara was hale and healthy, he died in the accident at the young age of 25 years, he would have lived upto 80 to 85 years and earned some lakhs of rupees and maintained the petitioners well. 100/- per day and maintain the petitioners and he was the sole breadwinner of the family of the petitioners. The deceased Simhachalam Behara was hale and healthy, he died in the accident at the young age of 25 years, he would have lived upto 80 to 85 years and earned some lakhs of rupees and maintained the petitioners well. The petitioners, who are solely dependant on the earnings of the deceased Simhachalam Behara, deprived his earnings and the source of their livelihood due to sudden demise of their son on account of the accident. The petitioners, therefore, claimed total compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, which was made up of Rs. 1,70,000/- towards pecuniary loss or loss of income etc., Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally as the 1st respondent, being the driver of the said van with valid driving license, caused the accident during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the said vehicle and as the said vehicle was insured with 3rd respondent, who is the insurer and it was in force by the date of accident. 3. The petitioners in O.P. No. 532 of 1998 are the parents of one Rajani Panigrahi, who used to work as cleaner of the van bearing registration No. AP16/W-1155. On 21.05.1996 night, the said Rajani Panigrahi as usual boarded the said van to discharge his duties as cleaner and to distribute the daily newspaper at various stations from Visakhapatnam to Ichapuram and he was travelling in the said van. When the said vehicle reached near Korlam village on N.H.5 road at about 5.30 a.m. on 22.05.1996, the 1st respondent, who was the driver of the van, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and with great speed by overtaking all the vehicles proceeding ahead of the van and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No. AP5/X 1197, as a result Rajani Panigrahi sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Station House Officer, Baruva P.S. registered the same as a case in Crime No. 58 of 1996. After post-mortem, the petitioners took the dead body of Rajani Panigrahi to their native place in a taxi and performed funerals by incurring an amount of Rs. The Station House Officer, Baruva P.S. registered the same as a case in Crime No. 58 of 1996. After post-mortem, the petitioners took the dead body of Rajani Panigrahi to their native place in a taxi and performed funerals by incurring an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The deceased Rajani Panigrahi used to earn Rs. 1,500/- per month as salary besides Rs. 20/- per day towards batta being the cleaner of the said van of the 2nd respondent and maintain the petitioners. The deceased Rajani Panigrahi was aged about 25 years and was hale and healthy by the date of accident. Had he not died in the accident, he would have lived upto 80 to 85 years and would have become expert driver of motor vehicles and earned some lakhs of rupees and would have maintained the petitioners well. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family and the petitioners being his parents are solely dependant on his earnings. Due to the unexpected sudden demise of the deceased Rajani Panigrahi, the petitioners deprived of their earnings and lost their source of livelihood and they suffered from mental agony and pain. The petitioners, therefore, claimed total compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs which was made up of Rs. 1,70,000/- towards pecuniary loss or loss of income, etc., Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering, payable by all the respondents and the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident. 4. In the Tribunal, both the O.Ps. were dismissed against 1st respondent as not pressed and the 2nd respondent remained exparte in both the O.Ps. 5. The common averments in the contesting 3rd respondent before the Tribunal are as follows: "There was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent and he did not cause the accident. The deceased persons are unauthorized and gratuitous passengers in the said van and there is no contract between them and the owner of the van, and therefore, there was violation of policy conditions and permit Rules for which the respondent is not at all liable under law to pay the compensation. Further, put the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased and the manner of the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and not conformity with law. Further, put the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased and the manner of the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and not conformity with law. The liability, if any, of the respondent has been defined and delimited both under the contract of insurance if any and also under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, hence the liability if any of the respondent cannot exceed such limits. Put the petitioners to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of 2nd respondent by the date of accident. Further, the 1st respondent caused the alleged accident during and in the course of his employment under the 2nd respondent and he was having valid driving licence and 2nd respondent was holding proper route permit, fitness certificate, R.C. etc. at the time of the accident. It is further stated that there was no cause of action as against the 3rd respondent and petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable under law and the petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. AP5/X 1197. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petitions with costs. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed separate issues. To substantiate the claim of the petitioners, the father of deceased Simhachalam Behara and the mother of deceased Rajani Panigrahi were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A. 1 to A.9 were marked (PW3 and Ex.A. 10 are related to another M.V.O.P. No. 9 of 1999, which was dismissed and against which, no appeal is preferred). On behalf of respondent No. 3, RW1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,64,500/- along with 6% interest to the petitioners in O.P. No. 511 of 1998 and Rs. 1,74,000/- along with 6% interest to the petitioners in O.P. No. 532 of 1998 against 2nd respondent and dismissed against 3rd respondent-insurance company. 8. Not Satisfied with the compensation awarded, the parents of both the deceased preferred the present appeals. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that on the date of accident! 1,74,000/- along with 6% interest to the petitioners in O.P. No. 532 of 1998 against 2nd respondent and dismissed against 3rd respondent-insurance company. 8. Not Satisfied with the compensation awarded, the parents of both the deceased preferred the present appeals. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that on the date of accident! the deceased Nagula Simhachalam Behara transported the ropes and coir fibre articles to Kanchili and boarded into van along with his goods, hence he is the owner of the goods and as such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Further, the deceased Rajani Panigrahi used to work as cleaner of the van and boarded the said van to discharge his duties as cleaner and to distribute the daily newspaper at various stations, hence the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van bearing registration No. AP16/E 1155 by its driver. The Tribunal ought to have seen that PW1 categorically deposed that their son used to do ropes business and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, therefore his income should have computed as Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal also ought to have seen that PW2 categorically deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month as salary and also getting Rs. 20/- per day towards batta as the cleaner of the van, therefore the Tribunal ought to have taken the said income for fixing just compensation. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate in both the petitions in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further argued that the Tribunal erred in observing that there was violation of the conditions of policy and permit Rules and therefore, the 3rd respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the Tribunal ought to have seen that PW1 clearly stated that their son was carrying bundles of ropes as custodian of his goods and he was travelling along with goods, therefore, he is the owner of the goods, as such the insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with 2nd respondent. Further, the Tribunal ought to have seen that PW1 clearly stated that their son was carrying bundles of ropes as custodian of his goods and he was travelling along with goods, therefore, he is the owner of the goods, as such the insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with 2nd respondent. Further, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was intended to carry daily newspaper bundles as per the instruction of the 2nd respondent and in fact the accident occurred during the course of employment and the said van was insured with the 3rd respondent, as such the insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. It is further argued that the Tribunal ought to have seen that RW1 deposed that premium was paid under Ex.B.1 policy by the insured towards unfair passengers and Rs. 30/-was paid towards coverage of risk of the driver and cleaner and Rs. 90/- was paid for six labourers. Hence, it is a comprehensive policy, as such the Tribunal ought to have held that the policy was covered in respect of owner of goods, and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Further, the Tribunal erroneously observed that the policy does not cover the risk of the deceased persons though the premium was paid and erroneously dismissed the liability against the insurance company and prayed the Court to allow the appeals against the insurance company also. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 3rd respondent/insurance company argued that both the deceased are unauthorized passengers in the van on the date of accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased and their family members. Further, the Tribunal rightly passed the award that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further argued that Ex.B.1 policy does not cover the risk of unauthorized passengers as the vehicle involved in the accident was goods vehicle and relied on the decisions of this Court reported in V. Brahmachary Vs. Lakshminarayana 2004(5) ALD 231 and T. Hanumantha Rao and another Vs. Motepalli Venkataratnam and others 2004(5) ALD 391 . 11. It is further argued that Ex.B.1 policy does not cover the risk of unauthorized passengers as the vehicle involved in the accident was goods vehicle and relied on the decisions of this Court reported in V. Brahmachary Vs. Lakshminarayana 2004(5) ALD 231 and T. Hanumantha Rao and another Vs. Motepalli Venkataratnam and others 2004(5) ALD 391 . 11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the only point that arise for consideration is: "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and that the appellants are entitled for compensation against the insurance company?" 12. Point: As per the oral and documentary evidence, there is no dispute that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of van bearing registration No. AP16/W 1155 by the 1st respondent. PW1, who is the father of the deceased Simhachalam Behara in O.P. No. 511 of 1998, deposed that on 22.05.1996, his son boarded the van along with bundles of ropes and coir and at the time of accident, his son was aged about 25 years. According to PW1, his son was also doing coconut business and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month prior to his death. To prove the age and income of the deceased Simhachalam Behara, PW1 has not produced any evidence. But, as per the petition averments, the deceased was aged about 25 years by the time of his death, whereas PW1 in his evidence stated that his son was aged about 18 or 19 years by the time of accident. Even Ex. A.5, the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Sompeta and Ex.A.6, the Certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Hospital, Sompeta and Ex.A.7, Record sheet of the deceased Behara issued by the Head Master, S.E. School, Tekkali (Kandra), clearly show that the deceased Simhachalam Behara was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident. Since the parents of the deceased Simhachalam Behara have not filed any evidence about the income, the Tribunal rightly taken his notional income as Rs. 15,000/- and 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, his annual loss of income was assessed as Rs. 10,000/- in order to arrive pecuniary loss sustained by the petitioners. Since the parents of the deceased Simhachalam Behara have not filed any evidence about the income, the Tribunal rightly taken his notional income as Rs. 15,000/- and 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, his annual loss of income was assessed as Rs. 10,000/- in order to arrive pecuniary loss sustained by the petitioners. The Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 16', which is for the age group between 15 and 20, and multiplied with the net annual income, which comes to Rs. 1,60,000/-and also awarded Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral and transport expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 1,64,500/- towards compensation to the petitioners in O.P. No. 511 of 1998 along with 6% interest. 13. PW2, who is the mother of the deceased Rajani Panigrahi in O.P. No. 532 of 1998, stated in her evidence that on the date of accident, her son was working as a cleaner in the van which was involved in the accident and he was paid salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month and that her son was an unmarried person. PW2 further stated that her son was aged about 23 years and relied on Exs.A.8 and A.9 - Post-mortem examination certificate and Inquest report, wherein it is mentioned that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence that her son was a cleaner of the van under the 2nd respondent and he was paying Rs. 2,000/- to her son. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum as his notional income and 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses which he would have incurred had he been alive. Thus, the annual loss of income by the petitioners on account of the death of the deceased Rajani Panigrahi was assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 17', which is for the age group between 20 and 25, and multiplied with the net annual income, which comes to Rs. 1,70,000/- as pecuniary loss. The petitioners also claimed Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral and transport expenses and claimed Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony due to the death of their son, but the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony. Thus, a reasonable amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- as pecuniary loss. The petitioners also claimed Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral and transport expenses and claimed Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony due to the death of their son, but the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony. Thus, a reasonable amount of Rs. 1,74,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal along with 6% interest to the petitioners in O.P. 532 of 1998. 14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not fastened the liability to the insurance company and only fixed the liability against the owner of the van basing on the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani [2003 ACJ 1] and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy [2003 SAR (Civil) 150] and prayed the Court to pass an award even against the insurance company. In this regard, the evidence of RW1, who is working as Assistant Divisional Manager in the Divisional Office of 3rd respondent's company at Visakhapatnam, is relevant. According to him, the policy was in force at the time of accident. RW1 further stated that the vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and as per the terms of the policy, it do not cover the risk of unauthorized passengers as the vehicle involved in the accident was a' good vehicle and filed Ex.B.1 policy. RW1 further stated that the deceased were unauthorized passengers in the said van on the date of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the 2nd respondent being the owner of the van is liable to pay compensation. 15. Admittedly, the evidence of PW1 - the father of the deceased in O.P. No. 511 of 1998 stated in his evidence that his son was carrying six bundles of ropes in the van and paid Rs. 100/- to the driver of the van towards transportation charges. Likewise, PW2 - mother of the deceased in O.P. No. 532 of 1988 stated that her son was a cleaner in the said van since two years prior to the date of accident and he was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. 100/- to the driver of the van towards transportation charges. Likewise, PW2 - mother of the deceased in O.P. No. 532 of 1988 stated that her son was a cleaner in the said van since two years prior to the date of accident and he was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. But, in support of her contention, PW2 did not file any piece of document to show that her son was working as a cleaner in the van and respondent No. 2 has not supported that the deceased Rajani Panigrahi had worked under him as a cleaner in the van at the time of accident. 16. Both the deceased Simhachalam Behara and Rajani Panigrahi are midway passengers who boarded the van and they are the passengers travelling with their goods in the van and they are not covered by the policy. The learned counsel for the insurance company relied on a decision reported in Deddula Padmavathi and others Vs. Maddala Srinivasa Rao and another (supra), wherein this Court held at Paras 7 and 8 as follows: "7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that even assuming that the deceased boarded the offending lorry, since he was travelling with vegetable bags, he should be treated a passenger travelling with his goods in the lorry, and so is covered by the policy issued by the 2nd respondent, cannot be accepted firstly because, there is nothing on record to show that vegetable bags were found in the offending lorry. The number of the vegetable and the other bags that were allegedly being carried and their volume and weight are not mentioned by the appellants. One or two bags of vegetables being carried by a passenger who boarded the lorry in the midway would not become 'goods' within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) because luggage being carried by passengers is not covered by the said definition. The volume and the weight of the bags being carried would have relevance to find out if they are luggage or goods' within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The volume and the weight of the bags being carried would have relevance to find out if they are luggage or goods' within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Words employed in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act, reading 'including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle' show that the intendment of the parliament was to cover the risk of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative, who actually engaged the goods vehicle for transport of his 'goods' from one destination to another destination, and are not intended to cover persons who board the goods vehicle, carrying 'goods' of some others, in the mid way with some luggage being carried with them. In view thereof, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the vegetable and rice bags being carried by the deceased would not fall within the meaning of personal luggage' of a passenger, and would be 'goods' within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The luggage being carried by the deceased i.e., vegetable bags, are not of such a volume that they cannot be carried with him in a bus or train or a taxi. They, obviously did not require a goods vehicle being engaged for being transported to their destination from the house of the deceased. So the bags that were being carried by the deceased would only be "luggage" but not 'goods' within the meaning of the Act. Since the deceased was travelling as a passenger, by boarding a goods vehicle in the mid way with his luggage, and not as the owner of the goods' being carried therein, he would not be covered by the policy. That should be so is obvious because as per Rule 252 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, a goods vehicle can carry not more than seven persons in all, and as per sub-rule 3 of the said Rule 252 no person other than a person connected to the conveyance of the goods', shall travel in the goods vehicle. So it is clear that the emphasis is on the 'Conveyance of the goods', because goods vehicle is intended to transport goods, and cannot be used as a stage carriage. So it is clear that the emphasis is on the 'Conveyance of the goods', because goods vehicle is intended to transport goods, and cannot be used as a stage carriage. A person, who boards a goods vehicle in the midway with some luggage like a bag or two, cannot be said to have engaged the goods vehicle for Conveyance of his goods'. As stated earlier since Ex.A3 shows that the offending vehicle started at Macherla with a load of Kadapa slabs, it is clear that the 'goods' that were being transported therein were Kadapa slabs. The owner of the kadapa slabs or his authorized representative, if injured, would be covered by Ex.B2 policy but not the deceased who boarded it in the midway with some luggage. The allegations in Ex.A2 clearly show that the deceased boarded the offending vehicle as a passenger with several others. It is clear from Ex.A2 that more than seven persons were in the lorry at the time of accident, which is also contrary to Rule 252 referred to above. 8. In view of the above, the Tribunal exonerating the 2nd respondent from its liability cannot be said to be erroneous and so, I hold that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants. The point is answered accordingly." The learned counsel for insurance company also relied on a decision reported in T. Hanumantha Rao and another Vs. Motepalli Venkataratnam and others (supra), wherein this Court held at Paras 5, 6 and 8 as follows: "5. Even assuming that first respondent asked the appellants and the deceased and their two other children to board the lorry to unload the goods being transported therein at Anakapalli, since it is not the second respondent (i.e., the insured) that employed them, but it is the first respondent the driver that employed them, they would not be "employees of a person insured by the policy" falling in proviso (i) to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and so third respondent cannot be made liable. 6. First respondent permitting the deceased tot ravel on the load being transported in the offending lorry is against Rule 36(viii) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 6. First respondent permitting the deceased tot ravel on the load being transported in the offending lorry is against Rule 36(viii) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. So, the Tribunal holding that the appellants were travelling in the lorry as passengers, but not as coolies and so third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to them needs no interference. 8. Baljit Kaur's case (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for appellants is of no help to the appellants because what the Apex Court held is that case is in the awards already passed against the insurer, the insurer can pay the amounts and recover the amounts from the owners of the offending vehicles. That decision does not empower the Appellate Court, when the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from liability in case a passenger in a goods vehicle, to interfere and pass an award against the insurer also and direct it to recover the amount paid by it from the owner. It only saved the awards already passed against the insurer and empowered the insurer to recover the amounts paid by them from the owner of the offending vehicles. In this case, since the Tribunal exonerated the third respondent from liability there is no scope for this Court making the third respondent liable by invoking Baljit kaur's case (supra)." 17. The above two decisions are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case and the deceased are unauthorized passengers travelled in the van. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the appellants as rightly held by the Tribunal. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in both the appeals so as to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 19. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in both appeals shall stand closed. Appeal dismissed