JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award dated 08.06.2016 in M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (“Tribunal” for short) whereunder, the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation with regard to the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.09.2008, as against the original claim of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- towards the compensation. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners in the M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that: (i) On 10.09.2008 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased and others went to coolie work to load mud in the tractor bearing No. AP-26-W-6128 and trailer bearing No. AP-26-D-2393 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) of B. Lakshmanna with driver and after loading mud at about 10.00 a.m. while returning, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. 5th respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the vehicle while negotiating a curve after passing Acharlapalle on Madanapalle- Nimmanapalle road and hit a culvert (mori). In the result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and the deceased and two others who were travelling on the top of the mud load of the offending vehicle, fell down and when the tractor fell on the deceased, he died on the spot and one P. Srinivasulu received injuries. In connection with the accident, a case in Crime No. 40/2008 against the 5th respondent was registered under Sections 337 and 304 (A) IPC before the J.F.C.M. Madanapalle. (ii) Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing business, cultivation, coolie work and earning not less that Rs.20,000/- per month and also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum in cultivation and also doing coolie work and contributing the same to the petitioners. The petitioners are solely depending upon the deceased. The 1st petitioner being the wife, lost her husband, the 2nd petitioner being the mother, lost her son and the 3rd petitioner being the daughter, lost her father. The petitioners are solely depending upon the deceased. The 1st petitioner being the wife, lost her husband, the 2nd petitioner being the mother, lost her son and the 3rd petitioner being the daughter, lost her father. If the deceased had been alive, he would have provided the petitioners with all comforts and the petitioners are subjected to much mental agony and sleepless nights. (iii) The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, the 3rd respondent is the concubine of the deceased and there is no relationship between the deceased and the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance policy is in force at the time of accident and the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondents 1, 2 and 5 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 4. The 1st respondent got filed a written statement denying the allegations in the petition and contending in substance that the compensation claimed is excessive. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the 2nd respondent alone has to satisfy the award, if the petitioners are legally entitled to. The 1st respondent did not violate any conditions of the insurance policy. 5. The 2nd respondent/insurance company got filed a written statement denying the allegations and contending in substance that the 1st respondent obtained insurance policy from the 2nd respondent in respect of the offending vehicle under farmer’s package insurance to use the vehicle for his own agriculture purpose. The 1st respondent did not pay any premium to cover the risk of labourer, passengers and other inmates of the offending vehicle. The deceased and others were travelling in the offending vehicle by sitting on the top of the load of sand. The risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy and he was an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger. The 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy and he was an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger. The 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle trailer bearing registration No. AP-26-D-2393 and tractor bearing No. AP-26-W-6128, resulting the death of the deceased by name Thummala Subbaiah? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? (3) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW-1 to PW-2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW-1 to RW-2 were examined. Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 to X2 were marked. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence made findings that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license and there was a valid insurance policy under Ex.B1 and the premium is also paid to cover the risk of the coolies and with the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal considered monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on the basis of notional theory and deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier “15” and ascertained the loss of dependency as Rs.3,60,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate and further Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner towards consortium, as such, totally awarded a sum of Rs.6,10,000/-. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation as Rs.4,10,000/- to the 1st petitioner, Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- to the 3rd petitioner. 9. The unsuccessful 2nd respondent felt aggrieved of the award filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 10. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A. the point that arises for determination is as follows: Whether the award, dated 08.06.2016 in M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any other grounds to interfere with the same? Point: 11. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A. the point that arises for determination is as follows: Whether the award, dated 08.06.2016 in M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any other grounds to interfere with the same? Point: 11. Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel, representing, Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that absolutely, the driver of the offending vehicle obtained policy for his tractor, so as to cover the agricultural operations. But it was used for commercial purpose for transportation of mud. There was violation of policy conditions. The deceased was travelling on the top of the load in the trailer which is not permissible. On that count also there were policy violations. The owner of the offending vehicle did not pay any extra premium to cover the risk of the passengers. Even, if such premium is offered, the insurance company will not accept the same, because on the top of the load one cannot travel. In view of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 SCC Online SC 1270 the conventional heads of the compensation should be Rs.70,000/- and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner which needs to be reduced. Further, a sum of Rs.50,000/- granted under loss of estate needs to be reduced. He would submit that the conventional heads of compensation is Rs.70,000/- as against Rs.2,55,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the aforesaid counts. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license and there were policy violations under several counts. With the above submissions, he would contend that the insurance company is to be absolved of the responsibility and the responsibility may be fixed against the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. 1st respondent and 5th respondent in the claim. 12. Sri Guttapalem Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants would contend that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent act of the 5th respondent in driving the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded the compensation on reasonable basis which needs no interference. 12. Sri Guttapalem Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants would contend that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent act of the 5th respondent in driving the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded the compensation on reasonable basis which needs no interference. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balu Krishna Chavan vs. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Others in SLP (C) No. 33638 of 2017 and Manura Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Others in SLP (C) 5805 of 2013 and judgment of this High Court in M.A.C.M.A. No. 945 of 2013. 13. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 would contend that respondent Nos.5 and 6 were added by the claimants against whom no adverse order is there. The 7th respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and insurance company has to take care of to pay the compensation. 14. As seen from the evidence of PW-1 (1st petitioner), she put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her cross examination, Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of FIR in Cr. No. 40 of 2008 of Nimmanapalle P.S. Ex.A2 was the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the certified copy of post mortem certificate. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of MVI report. Ex.A5 was the certified copy of inquest report. Ex.A6 was the family members’ certificate. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW-1 in cross examination, she was not a witness to the occurrence admittedly. However, petitioners’ examined PW-2 who is the mother of the deceased and she deposed that she witnessed the accident and it was happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Nothing could be elicited during the course of cross examination of PW-2 to doubt her presence at the time of accident. Pertaining to the accident in question, the police registered the FIR in Crime No. 40 of 2008 of Nimmanapalle Police Station and after investigation filed charge sheet under Ex.A2. According to Ex.A3, the copy of post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased was on account of fatal injuries in the accident. According to Ex.A4, the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects. According to Ex.A3, the copy of post mortem report, cause of death of the deceased was on account of fatal injuries in the accident. According to Ex.A4, the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects. According to Ex.A5, the copy of inquest report also probabilizes the contention of the police. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. 16. Turning to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimants with regard to the income they claimed for want of necessary proof. The period of accident was in the year 2008. So, the Tribunal applied notional theory and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rdof the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses and arrived at the net income as Rs.24,000/- and considering the age of the deceased applied the multiplier “15” and arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs.3,60,000/-. Insofar as the exercise made by the Tribunal in arriving at the aforesaid loss of dependency is concerned, it is on reasonable basis. However, in view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the conventional heads of the compensation is Rs.70,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- to the 1st petitioner as consortium and Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate but the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- consortium to the 1st petitioner. The tribunal further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate. So these amounts are to be interfered with appropriately. Hence, as against the sum of Rs.2,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal only Rs.70,000/- is permissible. To this extent the loss of dependency and conventional heads would comes to Rs.4,30,000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janabai and Others vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0985/2022 held that minor children are entitled to parental consortium. Hence, insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the parental consortium. So, the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is Rs.4,70,000/-. 17. Now, turning to the contention of the appellant, its contentions are many-fold. With regard to driving license, the respondents examined RW-2 who is Senior Assistant in R.T.O. office. Hence, insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the parental consortium. So, the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is Rs.4,70,000/-. 17. Now, turning to the contention of the appellant, its contentions are many-fold. With regard to driving license, the respondents examined RW-2 who is Senior Assistant in R.T.O. office. According to RW-2 as per the Ex.X2, copy of driving license, the driver of the offending vehicle is permitted to drive only the tractor but not the trailer and he possessed a non transport driving license. In cross examination, he deposed that he cannot say whether the driver holding driving license to drive the tractor can drive the trailer. It is to be noted that Ex.X2 is valid from 16.01.1995 to 15.01.2015 and thereby covering the period of accident on 10.09.2008. It is to be noted that a trailer cannot have the independent engine. So it needs to be attached with the tractor. One cannot get a license to drive a trailer which has no engine. So, the person who possesses a driving license to drive the tractor can as well drive the trailer by attaching the same with the trailer. The Tribunal did not find favour with the contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. So on this count there was no policy violation. 18. However, the fact remained is that Ex.B1 is copy of insurance policy which is valid from 03.09.2008 to 02.09.2009, covering the period of accident on 10.09.2008. It is to be noted that the findings of the fact recorded by the Tribunal is that premium was paid under Ex.B1 to cover the risk of coolies when the offending vehicle is used for agricultural purposes. It is to be noted that as evident from Ex.B1, no such whisper is there. The premium was paid towards the liability of a third party. Basically the case of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling on the top of the load in the trailer. It is to be noted that as evident from Ex.B1, no such whisper is there. The premium was paid towards the liability of a third party. Basically the case of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling on the top of the load in the trailer. Even according to the case of the claimants, after loading the mud in the trailer, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased and two others who were travelling on the top of mud of the load of the trailer fell down and the tractor fell on the deceased, as such he died on the spot. 19. It is to be noted that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, an insurance company will not allow the payment of any premium to the persons on the pretext that they will travel on the top of the load. One cannot travel on the top of load, if any premium is there to cover the risk of travelers. They are supposed to travel in the seat meant for the passengers only. The seat in the tractor was only meant for the driver. So absolutely, the act of the deceased travelling on the top of the load in the trailer is not coming under the purview of the agricultural coolie. The Tribunal erroneously made a finding that the premium was paid to cover the risk of the agricultural coolies. Agricultural coolies are not supposed to travel on the top of the load in the trailer. So, absolutely, it is a case where there was policy violation. The owner of the tractor did not pay any premium to cover the risk of the deceased. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal erred in giving finding that there was no policy violation and the premium was paid to cover the risk of the coolies. 20. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/ respondent No. 2-insurance company is to be absolved to indemnify the owner. However, the insurance company is duty bound to pay the compensation to the claimants and then to recovery the same from respondent Nos. 1 and 5 in the claim i.e. the owner and driver of the tractor respectively. However, the insurance company is duty bound to pay the compensation to the claimants and then to recovery the same from respondent Nos. 1 and 5 in the claim i.e. the owner and driver of the tractor respectively. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs interference, so as to reduce the same. The appellant-insurance company is to be absolved to indemnify the owner but appellant can be directed to pay the amount first and then to recover the same from the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 in the claim. 21. Turning to the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, SLP (C) No. 33638 of 2017, it is relating to the pay and recovery. Similarly, the decision in SLP (C) No. 5805 of 2013 is also regarding pay and recovery M.A.C.M.A. No. 945 of 2013 cited by the learned counsel has nothing to do with his contentions advanced. 22. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part reducing the compensation from that of Rs.6,10,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization holding that the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 in M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012 are jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation, but by directing the respondent No. 2 in claim, appellant herein to pay the compensation and then to recover the same from the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 under this award and further apportioning the compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- as Rs.2,70,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioner. On such deposit the petitioners are entitled to receive their respective shares in lump sum. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.