This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.837 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 15-04-2002.

2. Shaik Basheer, husband of the 1st claimant, son of the 2nd claimant and father of claimants 3 to 6, was working as cleaner in bus No.AP 25T 6174 and was travelling as such in the bus on 14-05-2000 when it met with an accident in front of congress bhavan, Nizamabad due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver. Shaik Basheer was run over by the bus and died while undergoing treatment at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad. He was claimed to be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary and. Rs. 100/per day as batta at the age of 38 years and the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the bus jointly and severally.

3. While the owner of the bus remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer put the claimants to strict proof of their claims and contended that the deceased himself was careless and negligent, due to which he fell from the footboard. The insuree also claimed the policy to be not covering the risk of the deceased/cleaner in the absence of payment of any special premium and desired the claim to be negatived.

4. The Tribunal framed issues about the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 during the course of enquiry.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the bus was driven rashly and negligently as proved by the oral evidence of P.W.2 corroborated by the first information report, inquest report, Motor Vehicles Inspector's report and charge-sheet, Exs.A.1 to A.3 and A.5. The Tribunal noted the absence of any contrary evidence for the respondents and the age of the deceased was taken as 42 years as seen from the inquest and post-mortem reports. The income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting one-third out of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency was calculated by applying the multiplier 15. In addition, Rs. 15,000/each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses were awarded making a total of Rs. 3,92,500/-. The same was made payable with interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The Tribunal gave directions about apportionment and disbursement of the compensation.

6. Dealing with the defence about the non-payment of any premium for the cleaner, the Tribunal opined that premium was paid for 35 passengers under the comprehensive policy and that as only one person died due to the injuries in the accident and no other passenger, interpreting the Statute to achieve its main object as laid down by the Apex Court, the insurer has to be made liable.

7. The insurer challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the cleaner and it was stated so on oath by R.W.1 before the Tribunal. Even the quantum of income was assessed without any basis. Hence, the insurer desired the award to be reversed.

8. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 6.

9. The point for consideration is the liability of the insurer for the death of the cleaner under the insurance policy in question.

10. The insurance policy is seen to be referring to the payment of premium in respect of 35 passengers apart from premia which appeared to have been• paid in respect of legal liability to paid-driver and/or conductor and for increased third party property damage. In respect of the personal accident to driver, conductor and cleaner as per endorsement IMT-6; no premium was paid. The oral or documentary evidence on record before the Tribunal does not run contrary to the same in any manner.

11. When in a similar case, premium was not paid to Hamali who died in the course of his employment due to an accide