1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 17.10.2002 in M.V.O.P. No.118 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool whereby and whereunder the claimants were awarded an amount of Rs.5,03,527/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realisation.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows:

On 27.10.2001, the deceased along with others was travelling by jeep bearing No. AP-21-A-9018 to go to Kurnool; that when the said vehicle reached Nannur Electrical Sub-Station, the driver-cum-owner drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and it turned turtle due to bursting of the rear left side tyre and he lost control over the vehicle resulting in the death of the deceased-Danam on the spot and causing grievous injuries to other passengers. Orvakal P.S. registered a case in Crime No.71/2001; that the first appellant-wife, second and third appellants-minor children of the deceased preferred claim petition for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. During the course of trial, first appellant-wife of the deceased got herself examined as PW.1 besides examining PW.2- eye witness to the accident and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and X.1, whereas RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-insurance policy was marked on behalf of the second respondent-insurance company. The lower Tribunal after framing relevant issues gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the owner-cum-driver of the accident jeep. The deceased was aged 52 years, 10 months and 22 days by the date of accident. He was working as Health Assistant at Primary Health Centre of Ravanur of Koilakunta Taluk and was earning Rs.11,630/- per month. The Tribunal taking into consideration the above facts as well as the fact that had he been alive he would have retired from service on attaining age of superannuation i.e. 58 years from service, determined his monthly earnings and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure therefrom arrived at Rs.4,90,527-34 ps towards loss of future earnings and dependency. In addition to that, the lower Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first appellant and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses. Thus, the lower Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs,.5,03,527/- with interest at 9% per annum.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the lower Tribunal erred in holding that the first respondent-owner of the jeep alone is liable to pay the compensation instead of fastening the liability jointly and severally both on the owner of the jeep and the insurance company. Further, he contends that the lower Tribunal ought to have granted some amount under the head of “loss of estate and love and affection.”

5. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent-insurance company submits that Ex.B.1- policy did not cover the risk of fare paid passengers and that carrying passengers in the accident vehicle amounts to violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. As per the terms of Ex.B.1-policy, the liability of the insurer is limited to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per each passenger in case of death or injury. In case where the insurance company failed to raise specific plea in its counter that its liability is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-in respect of each passenger, the Tribunal should consider the same and restrict the liability only to that extent in view of clause (ii) of Sub- Rule 7 of Rule 476 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. In case of fastening liability on the insurance company to pay the entire compensation amount, it may be permitted to recover the said compensation amount from the insured i.e. owner of the accident vehicle and to that effect he rel