This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 8MV

Act9 for brevity) by the Insurance Company, questioning

the liability as well as the quantum of compensation

awarded in the judgment and award dated 30.06.2016,

passed in MVC No.143/2014 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna, (hereinafter referred to

as 8the Tribunal9 for brevity).

Brief facts:

The claimants, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4

herein, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV

Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account

of death of deceased in a road traffic accident which

occurred on 30.08.2012 at about 12:00 a.m., when the

deceased Krishnegowda was proceeding in the canter lorry

4

bearing No.KA-13-A-4902 to Yeshwanthpur Market of

Bangalore. Respondent No.1 is wife of the deceased and

respondent Nos.2 to 4 are children of the deceased. It

was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that at

the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy;

he was an agriculturist having 8 acres land; dug bore well

in the land and growing potato, sugarcane and paddy in

his land; there are about 400 coconut trees in his land and

he was getting annual income of Rs.10,00,000/-. It was

further case of the claimants that the deceased was also

having 6 cows and he was selling 30-40 liters milk per day

and earning Rs.600-800 per day and he was looking after

the claimants and due to his death the claimants have lost

love and affection and they have been put to heavy and

irreparable loss. On appreciation of entire oral and

documentary evidence the Tribunal allowed the claim

petition and awarded compensation of Rs.13,75,000/- with

9% interest per annum from the date of petition till

realization and fastened the liability on the Insurance

Company. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award the

Insurance Company is before this Court.

5

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that the deceased was traveling in the offending

goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and not as a

transporter of potato goods, therefore, the Insurance

Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. He further

submitted that as per Ex.P17 RTC Extract produced by the

claimants themselves the deceased was not found to be as

an owner of the land, but his wife - claimant No.1 is shown

as owner, therefore, the claimants are entitled for

compensation only under the head loss of supervision and

not under the head loss of dependency. It is further

submitted that the other three claimants are major sons

and daughter, hence, they are not dependent on the

income of the deceased, therefore, a compensation cannot

be awarded under the head loss of dependency. It is

further submitted that Ex.P17 does not disclose that potato

crop was grown in the land, therefore, the claim put

forward by the claimants that the deceased was traveling

in the goods vehicle along with potato goods cannot be

believed. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the

6

deceased was traveling in the canter lorry along with

potato goods and he submits that it is proved that the

deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle as a

gratuitous passenger.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel

for the appellant that there is no evidence to show that the

deceased was owner of the land. In Ex.P17-RTC Extract it

is shown that the wife of the deceased is owner of the land

and just because the name of the deceased is shown in the

cultivator column in the RTC Extract produced, does not

prove that the deceased was owner of the said land.

Therefore, he submits that the claimants are entitled for

compensation under the head loss of supervision and not

under the head loss of dependency.

Further, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the Investigating Officer had added Section

192 of Motor Vehicles Act for carrying excess persons in

the Canter Lorry at the time of accident, which is more

than the permitted capacity, th