JUDGMENT : T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by Appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by order dt.22.02.2019 in M.O.P.No.943 of 2016, on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam. 2. The claimants approached the Tribunal by filing petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of death of one Sunkara Modayya in the accident that was occurred on 24.05.2016 in which the offending Tractor bearing Registration No.AP37AR 3096 was involved. 3. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimant Nos.2 & 3 are the children of the deceased. It is the case of the claimant that on 23.05.2016 the deceased approached the 2 nd respondent, owner of the offending tractor and requested him to send the tractor so as to plough the agricultural land belonged to him. Subsequently, on 24.05.2016 the deceased boarded the tractor and sat on the mudguard of the tractor. When it reached near the agriculture land belonged to the deceased, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit a big stone. As a result of which, the tractor turned turtle and thereby the deceased fell down under the tractor and died on the spot. 4. The claim petitioners stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month and the same was being contributed to the family. In view of the sudden the death, they approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 5. The driver & owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent/appellant filed counter affidavit contending that the owner of the tractor violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and allowed the deceased to sit on the mudguard and therefore the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and contended that the owner and driver are liable to pay compensation. 6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by impugned order awarded compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- to the claim petitioners on various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 8. Perused the record. 9. 6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by impugned order awarded compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- to the claim petitioners on various conventional heads. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 8. Perused the record. 9. The only ground urged before this Court is that the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms of the policy and allowed the deceased to sit on the mudguard. The counsel for the appellant would further submit that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, as such the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on it. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal after considering the plea of the appellant, had rightly awarded compensation by rejecting the contention of the appellant. He would further submit that the Tribunal failed to award compensation loss of consortium for all the three dependents, instead, it had granted only Rs.40,000/- towards one dependent. 11. The contention of the appellant that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was unauthorized passenger. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the offending tractor was admittedly insured with the Appellant- Insurance Company. In such circumstances, it would have to be held that the Appellant-Insurance Company has to pay compensation together with interest to the claimants as determined by the Tribunal and later the same can be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ V. Renganathan and another Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another , 2022 Supreme (SC) 1873 ” held that that even if the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, it has to pay the same to the claimants and later the compensation can be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. 12. Following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, in the above referred judgment, the contention of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 13. 12. Following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, in the above referred judgment, the contention of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, as can be seen from the order impugned, it is clear that awarding the compensation under various conventional heads, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In the case on hand, there are three (03) dependents and each dependent is entitled to Rs.40,000/- as per the Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SC 680 ” . In that view of the matter the loss of consortium has to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.10,80,000/- to Rs.11,60,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 14. Further, the order under challenge is modified and the Appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation of Rs.11,60,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is needless to mention that the Appellant- Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the above compensation from owner of offending tractor. 15. For the reasons recorded above, there are no merits in the instant appeal, however as directed above, the compensation paid by the Appellant-Insurance Company can be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of with the above directions. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.