JUDGMENT :

The appeal is admitted and taken up for final disposal at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 4.2.2012, passed in MVC No.512/2008, by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, have filed this appeal.

3. The case of the claimants before the tribunal is that, on 27.6.2007, at about 2.45 p.m., near the land belonging to one Hebballi on P.B.Road, between Narendra and Hubballi, one Ulavappa was travelling in lorry bearing registration No.MA-43/E-3880 as hamal. The driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the lorry and it was turtle down in a ditch by the side of the road. Due to the accident, Ulavappa sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants No.1 to 4 are the wife, daughter and two sons of the deceased, who were fully dependents upon his income. The deceased was a labourer in lorry and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month along with daily bhatta of Rs.40/-. The mother of the deceased was also impleaded as respondent No.3 in the claim petition. Therefore the claimants claimed compensation of twenty lakh rupees against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, who are respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.

4. In response to the notices, respondents No.1 was absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2/insurer appeared before the tribunal through his counsel and filed the statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. He further contended that his liability is subject to production of original policy, driving licence, permit of the lorry etc.,. He has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The deceased was not a labourer in the lorry involved in the accident. He filed additional objections contending that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the lorry and insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and that the driver of the lorry was also not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2/insurer examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2.

6. The tribunal, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding a compensation of Rs.5,47,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle was directed to deposit the compensation amount. Respondent No.2 the insurer was exonerated.

7. The claimants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award have filed this appeal stating that the tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle only on the ground that the deceased was stated to be travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the vehicle. It is further contended that the policy issued by respondent No.2 cover the risk of two non fare paid passengers (NFPP) and therefore the risk of the deceased was covered under the policy in addition to the risk of two persons as WC under the policy. The claimants have also contended that the income of the deceased considered by the tribunal is on lower side and the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants reiterating the grounds taken in the appeal memorandum submitted that the insurer has collected separate premium covering the risk of two NFPP and also cover the risk of 2 WC and therefore the case of the claimants falls under the category of NFPP and therefore the risk of the deceased is covered under the policy in view of IMT 37A.

10. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has relied on the judgme