B. Manohar, J.

1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 23rd February 2013 made in MVC No. 160/2012 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V, Chitraduraga (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short).

2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the claim petition contending that son of the claimants 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd claimant/Rangaswamy who was working as a Cleaner in a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-16/A-4670 died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 17-10-2011. In the claim petition it was contended that on 17-10-2011 after exhibition of agricultural equipments in Krishi Mela, while he was returning from Raichur, the driver of the offending lorry drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked lorry bearing registration No. KA-32/6611. Due to the accident, the cleaner of the said Lorry deceased Rangaswamy sustained fatal injuries to the vital parts of the body. He was shifted to the VIMS hospital, Bellary. However, he died during the course of treatment. The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- due to the death of the deceased Rangaswamy claiming that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. by working as a cleaner of the said lorry.

3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 entered appeared and filed statement of objections. In the objections statement, the first respondent contended that the deceased was not working as a cleaner in the said lorry; denied the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver and also disputed the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. It was further contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the second respondent is liable to compensate the claimants, if the court holds that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the said lorry. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the first respondent.

4. The second respondent/Insurance Company in their statement of objections denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that in view of denial of relationship by the first respondent that the deceased was a cleaner in his lorry, the deceased was an unauthorized passenger traveling in the lorry. Hence the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Due to the negligent act of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-32/6611 who had parked the vehicle in negligent manner, the accident had occurred and there is contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles. Further the compensation claimed is highly excessive and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the second respondent.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimants in order to prove their claim examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P9. One of the eye witnesses to the accident was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondents none of the witnesses were examined. However, with the consent of the parties, Insurance Policy was marked as Ex. R1.

6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and taking into consideration the copy of spot panchanama, IMV report, copy of the complaint and FIR, held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, the accident had occurred. The deceased was working as a cleaner in the said lorry and the claimants are none other than the father, mother and sister of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claim that as a cleaner, the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and produced the salary certificate issued by 'VARSHA AGENCY', Chitradurga, the author of the said salary certificate was not examined to p