B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The Cholamandalam MG General Insurance Company Limited (2nd respondent in the claim petition) filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Warangal (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No. 8 of 2005 dated 05.03.2007, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) against the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (claimants in the claim petition i.e. wife, two major sons and minor daughter of deceased) of Rs. 5,75,000/- (Rupees five lakh seventy five thousand only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').

2. Heard Sri Kota Subbarao, learned standing counsel for the appellant, Sri T. Damodar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4-claimants. The 5th respondent-owner of the crime vehicle though contested before the Tribunal did not choose to appear before this Court and thus taken as heard the 5th respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during course of hearing in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal gravely erred in passing pay and recover directions instead of totally exonerating the Insurer, that the Tribunal erred in not considering the factum of the deceased was travelling on the auto trolley which is goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger after so called unloading of the refrigerator and the Tribunal should have seen that the question of pay and recover does not arise for unauthorized passenger of goods vehicle apart from multiplier adopted and earnings of the deceased taken unsustainable and the quantum is excessive. Hence, to exonerate by allowing the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere with the reasoned award of the Tribunal, hence, to dismiss the appeal confirming the award of the Tribunal.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the award of the Tribunal fastening joint liability on the insurer with insured to indemnify the insured for the claimants subject to pay and recover directions is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in the appeal to exonerate the Insurer from joint liability?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court and if so with what extent and against whom with what rate of interest and with what observations?

3. To what result?

Point No. 1

6. The facts of the case are that, on 16.03.2004 the deceased B. Nageshwar Rao purchased a refrigerator in Gemeni Electronics, Hanamakonda, for his sister and engaged auto trolley bearing No. AP36V8349 belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent-appellant covered by Ex. B.2 policy and transporting the same at Ippaguda and while he was returning to Kazipet when the auto reached near Mahila Pranganam at Madikonda, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said auto with high speed went on wrong side and dashed against a stationed tractor/trailer and a tree, as a result the deceased who was sitting in the trolley of the auto, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, which occurrence is covered by Ex. A. 1 FIR and Ex. A. 4 charge sheet. The learned Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded in all compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- out of Rs. 5,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. against both the respondents in the claim petition directing the 2nd respondent-Insurer first to pay and then to recover from the 1st respondent-owner.

7. The fact that the accident was rash and