JUDGMENT : Heard the arguments of Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 19.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada (hereinafter referred to "Tribunal"). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one P. Ganesh (hereinafter referred to "deceased") in a motor accident occurred on 26.03.2010. 5. The case of the claimants is that the 1st claimant is the wife; claimant Nos.2 to 4 are minor children and 5th claimant is the father of the deceased; the deceased was aged around 32 years and doing fish culture and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month; on 26.03.2010 the deceased along with co-workers D. Dharma Rao and A. Rambabu boarded an auto bearing registration No.AP05 TT 8053 (hereinafter referred to 'offending vehicle) to go to Yanam for the purpose of procuring diesel oil and electrical goods for fish tank; they went to Yanam, purchased oil and electrical goods; the goods were loaded into the above goods vehicle auto; the deceased and two others were travelling in the same auto returning from Yanam to Kajuluru village; the auto reached a place near Vantithadi at about 1.20 PM; the driver of the auto (1st respondent) of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; he applied sudden brakes to avoid collision with a she-buffalo coming across the road; as a result, the auto turned turtle; the deceased the who was sitting in the cabin, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot; Gollapalem Police registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "IPC"); they conducted investigation and laid report (charge sheet) against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC; the claimants are the dependants on the deceased and therefore, they filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 6. 6. The 1st respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of the offending vehicle filed counter contending that the accident was occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and not due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle; the offending vehicle is a goods carriage having seating capacity of one (01) only; the deceased and other persons are travelling in the goods vehicle are gracious passengers; the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the insurer since he violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the claim is excessive and exorbitant. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP 5 TT 8053 by R-1, resulting death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, three (03) witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3, respectively and six (06) documents were exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, two (02) witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2, respectively and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 documents are marked. 10. The learned Tribunal, basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent. This finding was not challenged by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 11. On quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants, the Tribunal, on issue No.2 held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,48,000/- towards just compensation. The learned Tribunal exonerated the respondent No.2/Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner of the offending vehicle holding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the offending vehicle, which is a goods carrier and passed the decree against the 1st respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle only. 12. Besides challenging the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it is not a just compensation, also challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner, the appeal is filed by the claimants. 13. 12. Besides challenging the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it is not a just compensation, also challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner, the appeal is filed by the claimants. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods, and therefore, exonerating the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not valid in law and even if the deceased was treated as gratuitous passenger, the Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of "pay and recovery". 14. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 ; Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, 2017 (4) SCC 796 ; Anu Bhanvara etc., Vs. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, 2019 (5) ALD SC 287 and Shivaraj Vs. Rajendran and another, AIR 2018 SC 4252 . 15. Learned counsel for the claimants would further submit that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and notionally fixed the income only at Rs.3,000/- per month, on lower side; The Tribunal failed to award loss of future income which is entitled by the claimants in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 16. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal failed to award the amounts under conventional heads i.e., funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate and in that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not a just compensation. 17. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 16. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal failed to award the amounts under conventional heads i.e., funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate and in that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not a just compensation. 17. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, basing on the evidence placed before it, held that the offending vehicle is a carriage vehicle and its seating capacity is only "One" and the policy issued by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company covers the risk of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle only and therefore, the deceased, is an unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle, and the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle by allowing another passenger to travel in the vehicle, violated the terms of the policy and further, his risk was not covered under the policy and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly exonerated the respondent No.2/Insurance Company from its liability indemnifying the owner i.e., insured of the offending vehicle. 18. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under : 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 2011 vide Order and Decree dated 19.07.2013 is not just compensation, and warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 19. POINT NO.1: The facts on record would establish that the offending vehicle is a goods carriage and as per the evidence of R.W.2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 documents placed on record by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, it would establish that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is only "One". Under Ex.B1 Policy issued for the offending vehicle, the risk of the owner of goods not covered. In those circumstances, any person travelling in the goods vehicle other than the driver of the vehicle would become an unauthorized passenger, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal. 20. Now the point for consideration is whether the principle of "pay and recovery" can be applied directing the respondent No.2/Insurance Company first pay the compensation amount and recover the same later from the respondent No.1/insured in the same proceedings by filing necessary application as per law? 21. 20. Now the point for consideration is whether the principle of "pay and recovery" can be applied directing the respondent No.2/Insurance Company first pay the compensation amount and recover the same later from the respondent No.1/insured in the same proceedings by filing necessary application as per law? 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivraj case at para No.10 held as under : “At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swarna Singh and others, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and including Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. the appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No.1).” 22. In the said case, the deceased was treated as an unauthorized passenger travelling on a tractor, whose seating capacity is only "One". The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said circumstances held that the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount to the claimants with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 23. In the light of above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh & Manuara Khatun cases, this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company be directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants at first and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle later, in the same proceedings by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. 24. When coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants not placed any cogent evidence with regard to income earned by the deceased at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased notionally and fixed the same at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.100/- per day. The accident was occurred in the year 2010. 24. When coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants not placed any cogent evidence with regard to income earned by the deceased at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased notionally and fixed the same at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.100/- per day. The accident was occurred in the year 2010. The deceased was working in rural area. In those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the order fixing income notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. 25. In view of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and anothers Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 and Pranay Sethi case, "1/4th" of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses instead of "1/3rd" deducted by the learned Tribunal. It comes to Rs.2,250/- [i.e., (Rs.3,000/- x 1/4th = Rs.750/-) (Rs.3,000/- (-) Rs.750/-)] and annual income of the deceased is Rs.27,000/-. 26. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is of 32 years and he would come under the age group of "31-35 years" and the multiplier applicable is "16" as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case. Therefore, the loss of dependency is Rs.4,32,000/- (i.e., Rs.27,000/- x 16) 27. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case, the claimants are entitled to loss of future income at the rate of 40% on the established income of the deceased as per the income fixed by the learned Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,72,800/- (Rs.4,32,000/- x 40%). 28. The claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Funeral Expenses’; Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Loss of Estate’. The 1st claimant being the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 being the minor children, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , they are entitled to ‘spousal and filial consortium’ at Rs.40,000/- each, which would come to Rs.1,60,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. 29. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.7,94,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety four thousand and eighty hundred only) towards just compensation under Section 166 of the Act under the following heads discussed supra, instead of Rs.3,48,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal : Sl. 29. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.7,94,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety four thousand and eighty hundred only) towards just compensation under Section 166 of the Act under the following heads discussed supra, instead of Rs.3,48,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal : Sl. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 4,32,000-00 2. Loss of future prospects 1,72,800-00 3. Loss of Consortium 1,60,000-00 4. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 TOTAL 7,94,800-00 30. The claim petition was filed for Rs.4,00,000/- only. Indeed, the amount entitled by the claimants towards just compensation is Rs.7,94,800/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and others, (2019) 15 SCC 260 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. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.4,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.7,94,800/-. 31. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 32. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be "allowed", by setting-aside the Order and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 33. POINT NO.2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.192 of 2014 is liable to be "Allowed". 34. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 33. POINT NO.2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.192 of 2014 is liable to be "Allowed". 34. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is "Allowed" by setting-aside the Order and Decree dated 19.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada, holding that the appellants/ claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,94,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety four thousand and eight hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, instead of Rs.3,48,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 35. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment, at first and later, recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle in the same proceedings by filing necessary application and in the event of the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment. 36. On such deposit, the 1st Appellant/1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 37. The appellants No.2 to 4/claimants No.2 to 4 being the daughters and son of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts along with accrued interest thereon. 38. The 5th Appellant/5th claimant being the father of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,44,800/- (Rupees one lakh forty four thousand and eight hundred only), and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 39. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.