K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. MACA No.1724/2009 is filed by the Claimants in OP (MV) No.2044/2004 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, while MACA No.638/2009 is filed by the first respondent-owner cum driver of the vehicle involved in the accident of the same case.

2. The claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of deceased Varghese, filed the O.P. (MV) for compensation for the death of Varghese, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle, owned and driven by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, before the Tribunal.

3. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent and awarded a total compensations of Rs.3,43,350/- under various heads as follows:

Loss of dependency Rs.3,00,600

Transportation expenses Rs.2,000

Damage to clothing’s Rs.250

Pain & suffering Rs.5,000

Loss of love & affection Rs.15,000

Loss of consortium Rs.15,000

Loss of estate Rs.2,500

Funeral expenses Rs.3,000

Total Rs.3,43,350

4. The Tribunal also found that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and as such, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured-owner of the vehicle, and directed the first respondent-owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of claimants.

5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also the finding exonerating the insurance company from paying the compensation, the claimants filed MACA No.1724/2009 and against the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company and also questioning the quantum of compensation, the owner of the vehicle has filed MACA No.638/2009.

6. Earlier, MACA No.638/2009 alone was heard and this court by judgment dated 2.8.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle confirming the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from paying the amount and quantum of compensation awarded. Thereafter, the owner of the vehicle filed R.P.No.788/2013 and respondents 1 to 4 in that case, who are the claimants in the Tribunal and the appellants in MACA No.1724/2009 filed R.P.No.846/2013 to review and recall the judgment on the ground that this appeal ought to have been heard along with the appeal filed by the claimants, namely MACA No.1724/2009 and disposing of the case separately has caused prejudice to them. Since we are satisfied that the matter should be reconsidered on the grounds stated, we review and recall the judgment in MACA No.638/2009 dated 2.8.2013. The appeals are again heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

7. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring to the rank of the parties as obtaining in he O.P. (MV). The counsel for the claimants submitted that, in fact the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the authorised representative of he owner of the goods and, accompanying the goods of his employer, who is the owner of the goods. Further, the accident occurred at the time when he was unloading the goods when the vehicle was stationary and at that time, due to negligent moving of the vehicle by the respondent, the accident had taken place. So, the claimant can only be treated as a third party, who suffered death on account of the user of the vehicle in a public place and as such, he is covered by the policy. Further, according to the claimants, even otherwise, since the insured had paid Rs.75/- as a premium for a non-fare-paying passenger, the deceased is entitled to be covered as a non-fare-paying passenger. So, according to him, the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the insurance company in the absence of any evidence adduced on the side of the insurance company to prove the nature of persons liable to be covered on account of collection of the additional premium while issuing the policy. Further, according to him, the income taken by t