1. The appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, dated 26.07.2002.

2. The factual background for the appeal is that J. Rama Chandra Reddy, an Advocate, practising before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and aged 27 years, was travelling in a Maruti Van No.AP 9Z 368, owned by the respondent, on 17.06.1994 at about 5.30 a.m., when the van met with an accident on the National Highway No.7 within the limits of Puttandoddi village. J. Rama Chandra Reddy died on the spot in the accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Van, who dashed against a parked lorry from behind. J. Rama Chandra Reddy paid fare to the driver of the Maruthi Van for travelling in the van and Kodandapur police registered Crime No.11 of 1994 regarding the incident. Rama Chandra Reddy was earning a minimum of Rs.4,000/- per month, which he was contributing in entirety for the maintenance of his parents, who hence, claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-from the owner of the Maruthi Van.

3. The respondent contested the claim contending that the vehicle is a private vehicle of the respondent without any insurance intended to carry the officers of the corporation and not any passengers. The travel of the deceased in the vehicle was illegal and unauthorized and hence, the corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The other allegations of the claimants were also denied.

4. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation from the respondent.

5. It examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 during the course of the enquiry.

6. It rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Van as probablised by Ex.A4-First Information Report, Ex.A5-Final Report and Ex.A6-Inquest Report. The Tribunal noted that the driver also died in the accident and rejected the contention of the corporation about the absence of any liability to pay compensation on the ground of the deceased being an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased to be probably Rs.2,500/-per month, deducting half of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 11 with reference to the age of the mother at 47 years by then to arrive at the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.1,65,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,500/-each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and on the total compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. It directed the compensation to be shared equally between the claimants/parents.

7. The appellant corporation filed this appeal again contending that the position of the owner of the vehicle is like that of an insurer and when the van was intended only to carry the officials and not the passengers, any unauthorized act of the driver in permitting passengers to travel by the vehicle cannot fasten any liability to the corporation.

8. The claimants filed their cross objections contending that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a very low level ignoring the fact that he was commanding a good practice. Future prospects of the deceased were also not taken into account and deduction towards personal expenses should have been only at 1/3rd. The loss of estate and funeral expenses were also not granted at a reasonable level and hence, the claimants desired that the balance of compensation claimed also may be granted.

9. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant are heard.

10. The points that arise for consideration are