The award in O.P. No.669 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 30-08-2001 is the subject of both the appeals, C.M.A. No.3116 of 2003 being at the instance of the insurer, while C.M.A. No.787 of 2003 is at the instance of the claimants.

A. Rajeshwar, a labourer, claimed to be earning Rs.3,000/-per month at the age of 19 years is the son of claimants 1 and 2 and the brother of claimant No.3. The claimants claimed to be dependents on Rajeshwar said to be contributing his earnings to them and Rajeshwar was travelling in the trolley attached to tractor No.AP 25D 4775 on 04-06-1998. Near Nadpally village, the tractor was driven in high speed rashly and negligently at about 11 P.M. and on the tractor and trolley turning turtle, Rajeshwar fell under the trolley and died on the spot with injuries. Hence, the claim for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the tractor. The owner of the tractor-trailer remained ex parte, while the insurer claimed that none of the allegations of the claimants are admitted, which they have to strictly prove. The claim was contested as excessive and was requested to be dismissed.

The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled.

During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and

B.1 were marked.

The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.3 inquest panchanama to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer. The Tribunal took the age of the mother at 45 years as seen from Ex.A.3 inquest panchanama as the basis for adopting a multiplier of 10.45 as per Bhagawandas v. Md. Arif (AIR 1988 AP 99)The Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.1,800/- per month, deducted one-third out of the same and taking the balance as loss of contribution, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.1,44,000/-. It also granted Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock and agony and on the total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The Tribunal noted that

R.W.1 deposed about only the tractor and not the trailer being the subject of insurance under Ex.B.1 policy covering the seating capacity of only the driver. Relying on Sajid Mian v. Ganga and others (1990 ACJ 54)wherein holding that the trolley only can move with the help of the tractor and the tractor was insured, the Rajasthan High Court held the insurance company to be liable though the trolley was not separately insured, the Tribunal held the insurer to be liable to compensate.

C.M.A. No.3116 of 2003 by the insurer is on the ground of there being no separate insurance coverage for the trailer or any damage caused to third party by the trailer. The decisions reported in 2001 ACJ 1706, 2001 ACJ 2131 and 1987 ACJ 411 (SC) run counter to the decisions relied on by the Tribunal. Interest at 12 per cent per annum instead of 9 per cent per annum is excessive and the compensation awarded also is exorbitant. Hence, the insurer desired the award to be reversed. The claimants challenged the award in C.M.A. No.787 of 2003 contending that the appropriate multiplier is 15 and the appellants spent Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transport. They also were not granted any compensation for loss of love and affection, which should be quantified at Rs.50,000/-. The entire compensation as claimed, therefore, should have been awarded.

Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Smt. M. Seetha Devi, learned counsel for the insurer and Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants are heard.

The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occ