- JUDGMENT : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of common order dated 23.08.2023 passed in MVOP. No.381 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, one preferred by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation and the other by the Insurance Company challenging award of compensation by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows: (a) This is a case of death. The deceased being Banta Mastry, self-employed, maintaining team of coolie, was involved in activity of loading and unloading paddy. On 24.12.2009, the deceased was engaged for loading and unloading of paddy on tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos. AP 37AP 1929 and AP 37Q 3715 respectively. While, deceased along with other coolies loaded the paddy into the trailer and in order to unload the same at different place, the tractor was proceeding with deceased and other coolies sitting on the trailer, on the way, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor, both tractor and trailer turned turtle, thereby, causing severe injuries to the deceased, succumbed on the spot. Crime was registered vide Cr.No.205 of 2009 for offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC against driver of the tractor. The deceased stated to be aged 30 years and as Banta Mastry, used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month. - (b) Ascertained above, the wife, two minor children and father and mother of the deceased preferred claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with interest @12% per annum. (c) 1 st and 2 nd respondents, who were driver and owner of tractor respectively remained ex parte. 3 rd respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying the allegations made in the claim, inter alia, stating that the tractor and trailer involved in accident since being goods carriage vehicle adopted for agricultural purposes, and that too, tractor had seating capacity of only one, and any passengers travelling in the tractor are deemed to be unauthorized passengers, therefore, the same violated the conditions of policy and no liability can be fastened on the insurer. Further, it was also stated that the tractor did not have valid insurance in force and the 1 st respondent did not possess effective driving license, besides disputing the age and income of the deceased. - (d) In order to prove the case of claimants, wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the co-coolie who also travelled in the trailer was examined as P.W.2 as eyewitness and marked Exs.A1 to A5. None were examined for respondents, nor were any documents marked. (e) Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether Desa Venkateswara Rao deceased in the case died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of tractor and trailer No.AP 37AP 1929 and AP 37Q 3715? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed, if so, against whom? 3. To what relief? - (f) The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, came to conclusion that both the driver of tractor and as well as the deceased were equally negligent and therefore, in view of contributory negligence, it cannot be held that driver of tractor alone was negligent in causing the accident. However, considering the loss of sole breadwinner of family, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation to the claimants by awarding conventional heads and loss of love and affection, in total Rs. 3,20,000/- along with interest @7.5%. (g) Assailing the said judgment, both the insurance company to the extent of awarding compensation as well as the claimants to the extent of rejecting the portion of claim made, present appeals are preferred. 4. Heard Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel, representing on behalf of claimants, Sri Madhava Rao, Nalluri, learned counsel, representing on behalf of driver and owner of the tractor and Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondent Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A. No.286 of 2024 mainly contended that the Tribunal having found that the accident occurred on account of sheer negligence of driver of the tractor, ought not to have granted compensation, in particular, under the head loss of love and affection, which is contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , atmost the claimants were only entitled to conventional heads in terms of aforesaid judgment. - 6. - 6. Refuting aforesaid submission, learned counsel for claimants, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal grievously erred in holding that the deceased was unauthorized passenger and thereby denying the compensation as claimed initially. The Tribunal ought to have considered that, as deceased was Banta Mastry, who undertook the activity of loading and unloading cannot be treated as authorized passenger, the said activity is integral to the agricultural activity. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tummalapalli Srinu and others , 2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 17413 to contend that even a coolie or labourer, who is loading or unloading of goods from tractor-cum-trailer has to be considered as an authorized passenger under Section 147 of M.V.Act. Further, he contended that though the income earned by deceased was claimed as Rs. 12,000/- per month, even in the absence of any specific evidence, the Tribunal ought to have determined the quantum of income, which miserably failed to do so. As per his submissions, even if it were to be treated as case of no evidence, the deceased being Banta Mastry, he is entitled to be assessed for income based on daily wage under the applicable minimum wages notified, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. By placing reliance on the judgment rendered in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Revu Rama Lakshmi and others , 2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 18077 , which was a case of an accident occurred in the year 2014, he tried to justify that as the deceased income therein was considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month, so Rs. 3,000/- as claimed in the present case would be just and fair. He further contended that aforesaid income, after deducting the personal expenses and adding up with the multiplier of 17 and awarding future prospects, the claimants would be entitled for more compensation rather than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - - 7. Learned counsel for the insurance company, refuting aforesaid submissions with respect to consideration of deceased as authorized passenger and assessment of his notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month, contended that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for claimants have no application to facts of present case, in the absence of specific evidence on record, the claimants are not entitled to seek fixation of notional income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, contended that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for claimants have no application to facts of present case, in the absence of specific evidence on record, the claimants are not entitled to seek fixation of notional income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Likewise, the deceased was travelling on trailer for the purpose of unloading, he has to be treated as unauthorized passenger and the judgment cited in relation to the case has no application, inasmuch as unlike it was a case where the deceased therein was travelling in empty trailer after unloading and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal of claimants. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made by both parties. 9. The points for consideration in these appeals are as under: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in granting/awarding compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/- and that the order passed suffers from any perversity? - (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation? (iii) To what relief? Point No.(i): 10. The deceased was sitting on the trailer while it was proceeding for unloading. On 24.12.2009, the accident occurred on account of the tractor and trailer turning turtle. The tractor was driven by 1 st respondent driver, owned by 2 nd respondent. Immediately after the incident, the same was reported to the police and registered Crime No.205/2009 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. The aspect of deceased sitting on trailer and the occurrence of accident are not in dispute. The claimants have produced evidence of P.W.2, who was Co- Coolie and eyewitness to the accident and marked Ex.A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 – Inquest Report, Ex.A3 – Postmortem Report, Ex.A4 is M.V.I. Report and Ex.A5 is Charge Sheet. 11. The aforesaid evidence demonstrates that the deceased was sitting on trailer while it was proceeding for unloading, and on the way, the tractor and trailer turned turtle, causing death. It is the case of claimants that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor. In order to prove the case, besides examining P.W.2, marked aforesaid exhibits. Per contra, the insurance company has not examined any witness nor marked any documents. It is the case of claimants that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor. In order to prove the case, besides examining P.W.2, marked aforesaid exhibits. Per contra, the insurance company has not examined any witness nor marked any documents. A specific stand has been taken in the written statement that firstly that the driver of tractor was not at fault and that the tractor was only meant for goods carriage adopted for agricultural purposes, and that registered for only one seat, any passenger sitting either on the tractor and on trailer has to be treated as unauthorized passenger. The tractor was insured with the insurance company, the only objection raised was that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal had considered aforesaid aspect and found that the deceased ought not to have sat on the trailer, therefore, he also contributed for the accident being negligent, however, Tribunal has not fixed any specific negligence on the part of deceased. - 12. The aforesaid finding of Tribunal in the opinion of this Court is on mere conjecture as there is no specific evidence forthcoming on the said aspect. P.W.2 never spoke of any negligence on the part of deceased. The Tribunal presumed that the deceased was negligent as he was sitting on the paddy bags in the trailer. As rightly contended by learned counsel for claimants and as considered by this Court in Tummalapalli Srinu’s case (supra) , as the trailer is meant for carrying goods and in that process, the coolies who are supposed to load and unload also incidentally travel on the trailer, they cannot be considered as unauthorized passengers under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is apt to refer to Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment, which reads as under: - “16. It is settled law that a coolie or laborer who is loading or unloading goods from the tractor-trailer can be considered as an authorized passenger under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Prema Devi , (2011) 11 SCC 727 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “the term ‘authorized passenger’ is not limited to only those who are travelling in the vehicle for their own purposes, but also includes those who are travelling in connection with the purpose of the vehicle, such as loading or unloading goods. Thereby, it is crystal clear that the claimant was travelling in the crime vehicle as coolie by the date of accident can be called as authorized passenger. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger is absolutely no legs to stand.” - 13. Even otherwise, the Tribunal’s finding that there was contributory negligence is therefore without any basis. The Tribunal since having only considered the aspect of negligence and found that it was contributory negligence for the purpose of determining the compensation, it has neither decided what exactly was percentage of negligence on the part of the driver of tractor and that of the deceased. It has not dealt with the income of the deceased, age and other aspects in the process of fixation of compensation. 14. Even otherwise, in the facts of present case, it is not in dispute that both tractor and trailer were insured. Even if, in a given case, the trailer though not insured, however, was attached to tractor and while in motion, turns turtle due to negligence of driver of the tractor, it is still held that the coolies who were sitting in trailer in the process of loading and unloading of goods are required to be treated as authorized passengers and that the insurer would be liable for compensation. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Honnamma and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1027 , considering the case of deceased coolie, who succumbed while travelling in the trolley on account of toppling of tractor and trailer, due to rash and negligent act of driver of tractor, while confirming liability of insurer, held as follows: - “ 11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. 12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare- oriented in nature [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 ; K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338 and Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.” - Facts of present case, more or less, are similar to the one considered above. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.” - Facts of present case, more or less, are similar to the one considered above. The Tribunal in the present case found the driver of tractor was also negligent. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, in particular, Exs.A1 to A5, this Court is of the opinion the driver of tractor and trailer was at fault and on account of his rash and negligence, the tractor and trailer turtled. Exs.A1 to A5 are sufficient piece of evidence. - Insurance Company neither examined driver of any other witness to rebut the evidence. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for insurer regarding treating the deceased as unauthorized passenger is hereby rejected. 15. Though the Tribunal also recorded that ultimately after filing of charge sheet, the criminal case against driver of tractor ended in acquittal by judgment dated 31.01.2013, the same may not really come to aid of insurance company to contend that driver of tractor was not negligent. As regards reliability of FIR and charge sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 5 SCC 656 held that aforesaid documents, in particular charge sheet, prima facie points towards the drivers complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and others v. Joaquim Xavier Crux and another , (2013) 10 SCC 646 , which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another , (2023) 13 SCC 510 . The said view has later been followed and reiterated by Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another , (2023) 13 SCC 510 . Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani Sahoo and others , (2025) 2 SCC 599 , the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. - Point No.(ii):- 16. Now, this Court proceeds to determine the income, age and as to the amounts awarded under other heads are just and proper. The deceased claimed to be aged 30 years on the date of accident. In support of the same, Ex.A3 – Postmortem report has been relied on. The same suggests that deceased was aged 30 years. As there is no other contra evidence on record, the age of deceased can safely be considered to be 30 years. Coming to the income, though claimants have claimed that deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, except the statement of P.W.1, there is no other evidence forthcoming supporting the said version. The claimants have sufficiently demonstrated that deceased was in the activity of loading and unloading paddy, if not Banta Mastry, at least, he definitely can be considered to be coolie. Even if minimum as payable to unskilled workers to be applied, as contended by learned counsel for claimants, the deceased’s income can be assessed as Rs. 100/- per day, which comes to Rs. 3,000/- per month. In the judgment referred to by learned counsel for claimants in Revu Rama Lakshmi’s case (supra) , the income of deceased therein, who was driver, came to be considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month for an accident of the year 2014. Therefore, this Court is inclined to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering age of deceased as 30 years, after providing for personal expenses, deductible as 1/4 th , considering number of claimants to be five and applying principles and parameters enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the future prospects @40% awarded considering the age group of the deceased. - - Conventional Heads: 17. 3,000/- per month. Considering age of deceased as 30 years, after providing for personal expenses, deductible as 1/4 th , considering number of claimants to be five and applying principles and parameters enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the future prospects @40% awarded considering the age group of the deceased. - - Conventional Heads: 17. On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others , (2018) 11 SCC 780 , Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 , this Court awards the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as Rs. 48,400/- (per claimant), Rs. 18,150/- and Rs. 18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case (Supra). 18. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as mentioned below: S. No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 30 years) Rs. 14,400/- (i.e. 40% of the income) Total Income Rs. 50,400/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/4th) Rs. 12,600/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs. 37,800/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 30 years 17 x Rs. 37,800/- = Rs. 6,42,600/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants) Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total Compensation Rs. 9,20,900/- 19. Accordingly, both M.A.C.M.A. Nos.286 of 2024 and 498 of 2025 are partly allowed and compensation is enhanced over and above granted by the Tribunal to the claimants in MVOP. No.381 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, as just and fair compensation in the following terms: 1. The claimants are granted enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,20,900/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; - 2. The claimants are granted enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,20,900/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; - 2. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 9,20,900/-, the 1 st claimant – wife is entitled for an amount of Rs. 4,20,900/- and claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs. 1,50,000/- each, who are the minor children of the deceased and the said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank at Eluru till they attains majority. Claimants 4 and 5 are entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- each, who are the mother and father of the deceased. 3. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount, as aforesaid, with costs and interest, minus the amount if any already deposited, within a period of one month before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 5. Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the 1 st claimant before the Tribunal. As a sequel, miscellaneous pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.