JUDGMENT : A.V.Ravindra Babu, J. This Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27.08.2007, in O.P. No.741 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by the un-successful second respondent therein, which is the New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are no other than the claimants, who filed O.P. No.741 of 2001 seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased namely Mathangi Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who happened to be the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent respectively. Third respondent herein is the owner of the Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04-F-2792 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). He did not contest the present Appeal though there was service of notice. 4. The case of the respondents/claimants in O.P. No.741 of 2001 before the Tribunal, according to the averments in the Petition filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) is that on 02.05.2001, the deceased and other coolies were travelling by Lorry bearing Registration No.MH-04-F-2792 of Maharashtra carrying a weight load of stone crusher structure towards Peddapariya. When the said lorry carrying stone crusher came into contact with 11 KV Electric Live Line on 02.05.2001 at 05:15 p.m. near Peddapariya Railway Station due to electrocution, the said Mathangi Venkateswarlu and the driver of the offending vehicle died instantaneously on the spot. Some other coolies who were traveling in the Lorry jumped out from the lorry and escaped from electrocution. The incident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. The said Lorry was insured by the first respondent with the second respondent, as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e., the claimants. Hence, the Petition by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. Second respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a counter contending in substance that the accident was not occurred due to the fault of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04-F-2792. Hence, the Petition by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. Second respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a counter contending in substance that the accident was not occurred due to the fault of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04-F-2792. The policy number mentioned in the claim petition did not tally with the series of the policy issued by the second respondent. Second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, unless it is proved that the driver had valid driving license to drive the vehicle. Petitioners have to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and the compensation claimed by them is excessive. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the pleaded accident was occurred causing the death of the deceased Mathangi Subbaramaiah and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of Leyland tusker turbo Trailor Open bearing Regn.No.MH-04-F-2792 which belonging to the 1st respondent? (2) Whether R-1 insured his Lorry bearing Regn.No.MH 04-F-2792 with 2nd respondent/Insurance company by the date of accident, and if so whether the Policy covers the risk of the deceased? (3) Whether the petitioners are in principal entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? ( 4) To what relief? 8. The Tribunal found a mistake in Issue No.1 with regard to name of the deceased as such amended the issue as follows: Whether the death of the deceased victim in this case Mathangi Venkateswarlu was out of the use of the motor vehicle bearing No.MH-04-F-2792 belonging to the first respondent? 9. On behalf of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent/insurance company, no witnesses were examined but copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1 with consent. 10. 9. On behalf of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent/insurance company, no witnesses were examined but copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1 with consent. 10. On conclusion of the enquiry and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that Ex.B-1 policy was a valid insurance policy covering the period of accident and that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation and further the Tribunal, with reasons, considering the case of the claimants awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to them. 11. Felt aggrieved of the said order, the un-successful second respondent/insurance company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 12. Now in deciding this Appeal, in view of the grounds of Appeal which were adhered to during the course of hearing by learned counsel for the appellant, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the order, dated 27.08.2007, in O.P. No.741 of 2001, awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents/claimants by the Tribunal is sustainable under law and facts? 2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned order? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 13. Sri P.S.L.V. Prasad, learned counsel, representing Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, would contend that the deceased was no other than the un-authorized passenger in the motor vehicle, which involved in the accident and Exs.A-1 and A-2 would disclose the same and that the Tribunal did not look into the legal position correctly and it did not consider the earlier judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court and that the Tribunal erroneously awarded compensation to the claimants payable by the second respondent/insurance company. As the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. As the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. This is the only contention advanced on behalf of the appellant/insurance company, which is in tune with the grounds of Appeal, and in support of his contentions, he would rely upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others, (2005) 12 SCC 243 , Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2003) 10 SCC 664 and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and others3, (2003) 2 SCC 223 14. None represented on behalf of the respondents/claimants, though sufficient opportunity is given. 15. PW.1 before the Tribunal is no other than the wife of the deceased who got filed her chief-examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with her pleadings. Further, the claimants examined PW.2, a direct witness to the occurrence and he was no other than a fellow coolie along with the deceased in the offending vehicle. Through the examination of PW.1, Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. The chief-examination affidavit of PW.1 is nothing but adverting to the case of the petitioner in tune with the contents of the claim petition. 16. Coming to the chief-examination affidavit of PW.2, who claimed to be a direct witness to the occurrence, it is to the effect that he knows the claimants and the deceased Mathangi Venkateswarlu. About 6 years ago at about 05:00 p.m. the driver of the offending vehicle engaged him (PW.2), the deceased Mathangi Venkateswarlu and three others as coolies for the purpose of unloading stone crusher machinery in the said lorry, on payment of Rs.70/- to each coolie and when the offending vehicle was proceeding from East to West along with the material, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry driver, the lorry came into contact with the live overhead electric lines, as such the deceased and the driver died on the spot. He (PW.2) and the deceased were traveling in the lorry as coolies. Accident had taken place at about 05:30 p.m. on that day. 17. As pointed out, there was no oral evidence let in on behalf of the second respondent/insurance company. 18. Insofar as the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, PW.1 was not a witness to the occurrence. Accident had taken place at about 05:30 p.m. on that day. 17. As pointed out, there was no oral evidence let in on behalf of the second respondent/insurance company. 18. Insofar as the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, PW.1 was not a witness to the occurrence. It is PW.2 who deposed in support of the case of the claimants, as if he witnessed the occurrence. It is to be noted that the cross-examination part of PW.1 is confined as to whether she witnessed the occurrence or not. She admitted that she did not witness the occurrence. She deposed that she did not file any document to show that her husband was earning Rs.75/- per day as coolie. She denied that her claim is excessive. 19. Turning to the cross-examination part of PW.2, he deposed that the accident was occurred at a distance of about 1 ½ KM or 2 KM from Peddaparia cross road village. He denied that he did not travel along with the deceased in the offending vehicle and that he is deposing false. He deposed categorically in his crossexamination that when the crusher, which was transported in the offending vehicle, came into contact with the live electric wire and when there was electrocution, he himself, Venkataiah, Ramanaiah and Srinivasulu were able to jump out from the offending lorry but the deceased and the driver were in the lorry as such they died. It is to be noted that when the evidence of PW.2 was such that the driver of the lorry engaged the deceased, PW.2 and other two persons as coolies for unloading the contents in the lorry, his evidence was not at all impeached in this regard. So, the findings of the Tribunal were that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry. There is no basis for the appellant to contend that the deceased was the unauthorized passenger. When the direct evidence of PW.2 testified that he was not an un-authorized passenger, his evidence was not at all challenged. So, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not at all tenable. There is no basis for the appellant to contend that the deceased was the unauthorized passenger. When the direct evidence of PW.2 testified that he was not an un-authorized passenger, his evidence was not at all challenged. So, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not at all tenable. The Tribunal made a categorical finding on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record with reference to Exs.A-1 to A-3 coupled with the evidence of PW.2 that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. There was no dispute that though there was a discrepancy with reference to the policy number in the pleadings but the Tribunal clarified in the judgment that Ex.B-1 policy was produced by the Insurance company itself covering that it is relating to the period of accident of the offending vehicle as such contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there was a discrepancy with regard to the insurance policy is not at all tenable. 20. This Court has gone through the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant. In all the three decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the legal position with regard to Section 147 of the MV Act prior to 1994 amendment. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with amendment to Section 147 in the year 1994. It is to be noted that Ex.B-1 policy was issued by the second respondent/insurance company in favour of the offending vehicle in the year 1999. So, it was subsequent to the amendment of 1994 to Section 147 of the MV Act. So, by virtue of the 1994 amendment to Section 147 of the MV Act, now it is clear that it is only in respect of the cases under Section 147 prior to its amendment in 1994, insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried on goods vehicle when the vehicle met with accident and owner of the goods or his representative died or suffers with any bodily injury. Now, by virtue of the amendment to Section 147 of the MV Act, it reads as follows: “147. Now, by virtue of the amendment to Section 147 of the MV Act, it reads as follows: “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability – (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which – (a) ………….. (b) Insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) – (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: (ii)………..” 21. So, by virtue of the amendment, as above, to Section 147 of the MV Act and as Ex.B-1 policy is subsequent to 1994 and further Ex.B-1 literally whispers that its policy covers driver, coolies/other employees in connection with the operation/maintaining or unloading of motor vehicle, the contention of the appellant that Ex.B-2 would not cover the deceased is devoid of merits. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant were of no use to the contention of the appellant to avoid the liability. 22. Though the Tribunal negatived the contentions of the appellant to consider the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.70/- or Rs.75/- per day but the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.1,500/- p.m. and Rs.18,000/- p.a. and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal could only consider the remaining amount of Rs.12,000/- p.a. as his contribution to his family and applied the multiplier 16 applicable to the age group of deceased. So, the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.1,92,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It fixed Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards consortium since the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. However, the Tribunal restricted the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants. 23. In my considered view, the Tribunal on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record, awarded just and reasonable compensation. 24. It fixed Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards consortium since the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. However, the Tribunal restricted the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants. 23. In my considered view, the Tribunal on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record, awarded just and reasonable compensation. 24. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the order, dated 27.08.2007, in O.P. No.741 of 2001 is sustainable under law and facts and there are no merits in the Appeal as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.