JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company challenging the award dated 19.11.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.318 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, to the petitioners for the death of the deceased Vajja Krishna Murthy. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred to in the trial Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 163-A, 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest and costs on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 05.12.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., near Hyma Dairy, Karampudi road, Vinukonda while the deceased was going in a goods auto, under the jurisdiction of Vinukonda Police Station. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased was working as loading and unloading coolie and used to earn Rs.3,000/- p.m., and he was aged 49 years at the time of death. On 05.12.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., while the deceased was going in an auto rickshaw (goods carrier) bearing registration No.AP 26U 3680 as loading and unloading coolie along with the load of empty wooden boxes from Vinukonda to Kondandagari Slates Factory situated at Karampudi, the driver of the auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, as a result of which it turned turtle and the deceased sustained severe head injury. Initially, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Vinukonda, where he was given first aid and later he was referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The accident was reported to Vinukonda police, who registered F.I.R., in Cr.No.291 of 2006 u/s 304-A of IPC. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner. Hence, the respondents are vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver and they are liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners. 5. The accident was reported to Vinukonda police, who registered F.I.R., in Cr.No.291 of 2006 u/s 304-A of IPC. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner. Hence, the respondents are vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver and they are liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners. 5. Before the Tribunal, though the 1st respondent/owner made his appearance and filed written statement through his counsel, contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the driver was having valid driving licence, he is not liable to pay compensation as the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident, but he did not partake in the proceedings and failed to contest the matter. 6. The 3rd respondent/policy holder remained exparte. 7. The appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed written statement resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime auto and liability to pay compensation and contended that the driver of the auto rickshaw (goods carrier) was not having valid and effective driving licence, the deceased was travelling in the goods auto as an unauthorised passenger and thus 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation. 8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 26U 3680 by its driver? 2. What is the just amount of compensation that the petitioners can be granted? 3. To what relief? 9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 10. 2. What is the just amount of compensation that the petitioners can be granted? 3. To what relief? 9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 coupled with the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle causing the death of the deceased and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization without costs, fixing the liability on all the respondents 1 and 3, however the 2nd respondent/insurance company was directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners and further it was entitled to recover the same from respondents 1 and 3. 11. The contention of the appellant/insurance company is three fold. The first contention is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw involved in the accident. The 2nd contention is that the Tribunal having found that the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passenger i.e., deceased, who was travelling in the auto rickshaw at the time of the accident, erroneously awarded the compensation against the insurance company by applying the principle “pay and recovery”. The 3rd contention of the insurance company is that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier “13” and in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m., without any basis. 12. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased in the case. The 3rd contention of the insurance company is that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier “13” and in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m., without any basis. 12. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased in the case. The contention of the claimants is that on 05.12.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased was going in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 16U 3680 as coolie for loading and unloading of the goods from Vinukonda to Kondandagari Slates Factory situated at Karampudi and on the way the driver of the auto rickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result the auto was turned-turtle near Hyma Diary on Karampudi road, Vinukonda and the deceased sustained severe head injury and he was given first-aid treatment in Government Hospital, Vinukonda, and later he was referred to the Government General Hospital, Guntur and he died on the same day at Government General Hospital, Guntur while undergoing treatment and thereupon the police registered a case for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto under Ex.A1 copy of F.I.R., and after investigation laid the police report (charge-sheet) for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the auto in C.C.No.64 of 2007 on the file of M.M.Court, Vinukonda and the claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased filed the claim petition. 13. The claimants in order to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the auto, have examined the 1st petitioner/claimant, who is the wife of the deceased as P.W.1. In her evidence, she narrated the facts as mentioned in the claim petition regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the accident, but the claimants filed Ex.A1 copy of F.I.R., and Ex.A2 copy of police report (charge-sheet) prima facie disclosed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the accident, but the claimants filed Ex.A1 copy of F.I.R., and Ex.A2 copy of police report (charge-sheet) prima facie disclosed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. The appellant-insurance company though has taken a plea that accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, did not adduce any contra evidence to disprove the case of the claimants, and also did not choose to examine the driver of the auto, who can narrate about the manner in which the accident was occurred. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle, auto. 14. The main contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger travelling in the auto and therefore, he is not covered by the policy though it was in force at the time of accident as the crime vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle, and the policy is not covered for the gratuitous passengers and the learned counsel for the insurance company relied upon a judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others reported in 2005 ACJ 721 before the Tribunal apart from the judgment of this Court in Vachala and others Vs. V.R.Kumar and another reported in 2006 ACJ 2098 , wherein it was held that the insurance company will not be liable for the death of gratuitous passengers as the seating capacity of the auto is only one as per Rule 252 (5) of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules. 15. The Tribunal in its judgment at para No.24 referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh K.K. and another reported in 2008 ACJ 1741 , wherein it was held that the insurance company shall pay the amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle to meet the ends of justice as the claimant was a coolie worker and is not in a position to realise the difference from the owner of the vehicle. 16. 16. The Tribunal in para No.25 of its judgment held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the auto rickshaw and the 3rd respondent, who is policy holder are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, but in para No.31 of its judgment directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount and it is entitled to recover the same from the 1st and 3rd respondents. It appears that the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh K.K. and another, has applied the principle of “pay and recovery” since the driver has violated the policy terms by allowing the gratuitous passenger to travel in the auto. The facts in the case disclose that the deceased was travelling in the auto at the time of the accident as a coolie for loading and unloading the empty wooden boxes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh K.K. and another, referred in the judgment of the Tribunal, held that the insurance company shall pay the amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as the claimants could not realise the difference from the owner of the vehicle and it would meet the ends of justice. 17. The High Court of Telangana in a recent judgment in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. G.Kalamma and 7 others in M.A.C.M.A.No.3146 of 2005, dt.06.07.2020 while referring to the larger Bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur reported in 2004 (3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) 578 and another decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the United State Nagula Tulasamma and another v. Golangi Bhoopathi and others in C.M.A.No.970 of 2004, dt17.04.2014, accepted the principle of “pay and recovery” in the case of gratuitous passengers also. In the light of the above legal position, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in directing the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation amount and to recover the same from the 1st and 3rd respondents as per law. 18. In the light of the above legal position, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in directing the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation amount and to recover the same from the 1st and 3rd respondents as per law. 18. The appellant/insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier ‘13’ and also fixing income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m., without any basis and awarded a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. 19. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day treating him as an unskilled labour, and he can easily earn that amount at the relevant point of time and the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and accordingly fixed his annual contribution to the family at Rs.24,000/- and applied multiplier ‘13’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 considering the age of the deceased as 49 years on the date of accident. Ex.A3 copy of inquest report and Ex.A4 copy of the post mortem certificate filed by the claimants show the age of the deceased as 49 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, application of the multiplier “13” as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case cannot be found fault with. Hence, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m., and also in applying the multiplier “13” for calculating the quantum of compensation. 20. The contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the claimants filed the application for awarding compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,34,000/- beyond the amount claimed in the claim petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mona Baghel & Others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 734 while referring to the case law in Ramla Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mona Baghel & Others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 734 while referring to the case law in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2019) 2 SCC 192 , held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value, based on the principle that the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in awarding an amount of Rs.3,34,000/- by the Tribunal against the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- claimed in the petition by the claimants. 21. In the light of the above facts of the case, and the principles of law, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to deposit the awarded compensation to the petitioners/claimants and then it can seek reimbursement of the same from the respondents 1 (owner) and 3 (policy holder). 22. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal and no reason to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Award dt.19.11.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.318 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Court (F.T.C.), Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.