GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the award of the tribunal made in M. V. O. P. No. 76 of 1992 dated 5. 12. 1994 wherein the Claims tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioner on untenable grounds. Initially the claim was laid by the parents, sisters, brothers, wife and minor daughter of the deceased under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation of rs. 2,00,000. The brief facts of the case are as follows: on 6. 12. 1991 the deceased went to medarametla. There he purchased three bags of groundnut and in order to sell them, he left for Chilakaluripet along with the goods by boarding lorry bearing No. ADM 5136 belonging to the respondent no. 1. The driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and on reaching Martur, dashed against a stationed lorry and as a result, the deceased Ramaraju sustained fracture of both the legs and later succumbed to his injuries in the Government hospital, Guntur.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition stating that the driver was driving the vehicle with reasonable care, and when buffaloes came across the road, he suddenly applied brakes and stopped the lorry, and as a result, the lorry dashed against the stationed lorry. He further stated that he sold away the lorry to one K. Rosaiah on 11. 9. 1991.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 also filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the deceased never loaded any groundnut bags in the lorry and that the deceased travelled in the lorry as gratuitous passenger, and hence, there is no liability on the part of the respondent no. 2, insurance company.

( 4 ) IN view of the said pleadings, the tribunal has framed necessary issues for consideration. On behalf of the petitioners, both oral and documentary evidence was adduced, whereas on behalf of the respondents rws 1 and 2 were examined.

( 5 ) IN the absence of any eyewitness, the tribunal believed the version of RW 1 and exh. A-l, and on consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.

( 6 ) AS regards the determination of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not followed a proper criteria, and it has dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the vehicle was sold to K. Rosaiah and excluded the liability on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without determining the just compensation as contemplated under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act and that the claimants have not impleaded the said Rosaiah. Though the vehicle stood in the name of the respondent No. 1, nonetheless, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition and exonerated the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the liability without determining the amount.

( 7 ) MR. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the entire approach of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. The learned judge committed an error in not determining the compensation as per section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the vehicle was standing in the name of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. \ cannot escape from his liability merely on the ground that he sold away the vehicle to Rosaiah. The learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn my attention to the latest decision of the supreme Court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has considered the effect of section 147, particularly an insurance policy covering the third party risk. In the instant case Exh. B-l is covering the third party risk. The Apex Court held that"under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class". The Apex Court further observed that "the old Act vis-a-vis gratu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document