JUDGMENT (Prayer C.M.As': Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.693 of 2014, dated2.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Dindigul.)    Common Judgment: 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.693 of 2014, dated 2.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Dindigul. 2. The claim Petitioners are the appellants in C.M.A(MD)No.710 of2020 seeking enhancement of compensation as well as exoneration of liability of second respondent Insurance Company was under challenge. C.M.A(MD)No.1171 of 2021 is filed by the owner of the vehicle as against the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in C.M.A(MD)No.710 of 2020. 4. The claim petitioners both in their petition as well as in the evidence as P.W.1 would depose that on 8.6.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased Krishnan travelling in the first respondent's TATA Ace Mini Door Auto bearing Registration No.TN 57 P 8915 as a Load Man, in Vedasandur to Kumbur Road, near Veriampatti Bridge at that time, driver of the TATA ACE Mini Door Auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner and that auto became capsized from the road, due to the accident, the deceased Krishnan was thrown away and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident had happened only due to the careless, rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver. 5. In the counter statement, the owner of the vehicle stated that the deceased travelled as a Loadman and paid salary of Rs. 8,000/- 6. The second respondent Insurance Company filed a counter statement inter-alia contending that there is a violation of policy condition in the sense that first respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 57 P 8915 has been registered as a Light Goods Vehicle with the seating capacity of two, by the transport authorities. On that basis, this respondent's company has covered the risk of the first respondent's vehicle ie., registered carrying capacity is two in all. No premium is paid to this respondent Insurance Company to cover the risk of the passengers travelled in the first respondent's goods vehicle. On that basis, this respondent's company has covered the risk of the first respondent's vehicle ie., registered carrying capacity is two in all. No premium is paid to this respondent Insurance Company to cover the risk of the passengers travelled in the first respondent's goods vehicle. At the time of the alleged accident, 20 unauthorized passengers along with the driver ie., totally 21 persons have travelled in the first respondent's goods carrying vehicle. This is not only contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but also against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. By the above manner, the first respondent has used his vehicle by violating the policy conditions. The first respondent has used his goods carrying vehicle for transporting unauthorized passengers. Moreover, as per the First Information Report and claim petition, it is found that the unauthorized passengers/deceased had travelled in the first respondent's goods carrying commercial vehicle for attending a condolence. This respondent's company has not covered the risk of the passengers travelled in the first respondent's goods carrying commercial vehicle. 7. Further, in the instant case, at the material time of accident, it was used for carrying 21 passengers along with insured vehicle driver. On account of use of vehicle in violation of policy condition and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by the second respondent, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the first respondent. As per the policy condition, a person possessing an authorization to drive the transport vehicle (Badge) has to drive the first respondent's goods carrying commercial vehicle. T. Rajkumar has driven the trasport vehicle(Badge) has driven the first respondent's goods carrying vehicle without valid driving licence ie., he has not been authorized to drive the transport vehicle without Badge. 8. During trial, the first appellant is examined as P.W.1 and occurrence witness is examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. The owner of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1. One Mr.Mohammed Ramjeen is examined as R.W.2. The existence of the policy coverage is not disputed by R.W.3, Senior Assistant from the Insurance Company. Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. 9. Whether the deceased was a third party or travelled in the vehicle as a Loadman or unauthorized passenger is the point for consideration? 10. One Mr.Mohammed Ramjeen is examined as R.W.2. The existence of the policy coverage is not disputed by R.W.3, Senior Assistant from the Insurance Company. Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. 9. Whether the deceased was a third party or travelled in the vehicle as a Loadman or unauthorized passenger is the point for consideration? 10. As per Ex.P1 First Information Report coupled with the oral evidence of R.W.3 and Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, the Tribunal has observed that R.W.3 Senior Assistant deposed that the vehicle was insured in their company as per the policy under Ex.R3. The alleged vehicle is TATA ACE and is a commercial vehicle. It should be used only for commercial purpose. Contrarily, the deceased and others travelled in the vehicle to convey condolence. Hence the deceased being a gratituous passenger is not entitled for compensation. He further stated that the passengers of the vehicle filed M.C.O.P.No.639 of 2012, on the file of the Special Court, Dindigul and liability of insurer was exoneated as per the judgment under Ex.R4 and Ex.R5. On perusal of Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, it is found that the liability of Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that the Petitioners were gratituous passengers. But R.W.1-owner of the vehicle admitted that they all went to attend death but he states that he pays the premium for loadman. 11. When 21 persons are travelled in the above vehicle at the time of accident, the averment made by P.W.1 is totally unbelievable and the trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence of P.W.1. In view of the specific evidence of R.W.3 that the vehicle is a commercial vehicle and contrary to the terms, they used the vehicle to carry 21 persons to attend the funeral. In the said process, there was an accident and the deceased was not a loadman. As per Ex.R3 Policy no additional premium was paid for the loadman and hence the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company as the policy does not cover the gratituous passengers. The said finding rendered by the Tribual is well considered and well-founded which does not call for any interference at the appellate stage. 12. As per Ex.R3 Policy no additional premium was paid for the loadman and hence the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company as the policy does not cover the gratituous passengers. The said finding rendered by the Tribual is well considered and well-founded which does not call for any interference at the appellate stage. 12. On the point of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- It is fixed at Rs.6500/- and as per the Pranay Sethy's case, 25% future prospects has to be added and 1/4th deduction has to be made. Since the deceased is aged 45 years, multiplier of 14 to be adopted. Hence the compensation is reassessed at Rs.6500/-+Rs. 1625/- =Rs.8125 x 12 x 14x 3/4= 10,23,750/-Further this Court awards Rs.40,000/-as filatial consortium to the frist claimant-wife and and claimants 2,3 and 4/Appellants 2,3 and 4 are each entitled to Rs.40,000/- as parental consortium, totalling to Rs.1,20,000/- Further, this Court awards a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 15,000/- for transport expenses and in all the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.12,28,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% pa. 13. In fine, C.M.A(MD)No.710 of 2020 is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,45,000/- to Rs.12,28,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The appellants are entitled to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle by following due process of law and the order of exoneration of the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the claimants by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. No costs. 14. Insofar as C.M.A(MD)No.1171 of 2021 is concerned, as the appellant's prayer as against the exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability is negatived, the above C.M.A stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.