C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed O. P. No. 269 of 1996 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad, against respondents 4 and 5 and the appellant, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,34,000/- consequent on the death of L. Rajakka (deceased), wife of 1st respondent and mother of respondents 2 and 3, alleging that on 23-5-1996 when the deceased, who was earning Rs. 2,000. 00 per month as a vegetable vendor, was traveling in a jeep bearing No. AHT. 9521 belonging to the 4th respondent, being driven by 5th respondent and insured with the appellant, from Bellampally to Ghanapur, she fell out of the jeep due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent and sustained a head injury and died on the spot.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 4 and 5 remained ex parte. Appellant filed its counter putting respondents 1 to 3 proof of the averments in the petition, and contending that it is not liable to pay compensation because the deceased was traveling in the jeep, as a fare paying passenger though it is not meant to be used as a taxi.

( 3 ) IN support of their case, respondents 1 to 3 examined two witnesses as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A4. In support of its case, appellant examined one witness as RW. 1 and marked Ex. B1 on its behalf. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held on issue No. 1, which relates to the question whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 5th respondent, in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. On issue Nos. 2 and 3, relating to the quantum and the liability of respondents 4 and 5 and the appellant, it held that respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to Rs. 1,34,000. 00 from respondents 4 and 5 and appellant jointly and severally, with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, and passed an award accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

( 4 ) THE main contention of Mr. K. L. N. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Tribunal grossly erred in adopting "13" as multiplier when the deceased was aged more than 50 years and was also in error in computing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000. 00 per annum and her contribution to respondents 1 to 3 at Rs. 10,000. 00 per year, without any evidence on record, and in any event since the terms and conditions in Ex. B1 show that the insurance does not cover passengers traveling in the vehicle for hire or reward, and since the deceased was traveling in jeep by paying hire, the Tribunal was in error in passing an award against the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 is that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the ratio in SHANKARAYYA AND ANOTHER vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. , AND ANOTHER. The points for consideration in this appeal are-1. Whether the appeal filed by the insurer is not maintainable? 2. To what compensation, if any, are the respondents entitled to?

( 5 ) IN SHANKARAYYA case it is held that the insurance company is not entitled to file an appeal on merits of the claim before the High Court. The driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in this case chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal and have also not preferred an appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. Recently the Supreme Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. BHUSHAN SACHDEVA AND OTHERS after referring to Sections 170 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) held that it is open to the insurance company to invoke the right under Section 173 of the Act to file an appeal if the insured had failed to appeal against the award passed against him. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, since the insured did not prefer an appeal against the award of the Tribunal, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal filed by the insurance company is not maintainable has no force, and so I hold that the insuranc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document