Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Chairman-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur in O.P.No.4 of 1998 on 4th November, 1999, this appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

Appellant herein is 2nd respondent-the Insurance Company and 4th respondent herein is the driver of the lorry and respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the wife and sons of the deceased by name T. Abdul Rahim (herein after referred to as the deceased), are the claimants. The status of the parties will herein after be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally for the death of the deceased in the motor accident.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 15-5-1997 while the deceased was transporting mangoes in a lorry bearing No.A.P.02-V-2725 from Bangalore to Hyderabad and while the lorry was proceeding near Pamurai near Anantapur on N.H.7 Road, the 1st respondent-driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as result of which, the driver lost control over the lorry and the lorry turned turtle and due to that, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Anantapur Taluk Police registered the same as a case in Crime No.38 of 1997 against the driver-1st respondent. The deceased was the owner of the said lorry and he insured the vehicle with the Insurance Company and it was in force at the time of accident. Both the driver and the Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation. The deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident and he was doing business in Mangoes and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the claim application is filed for a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

The 1st respondent-driver remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter contending that the policy was in force and it covers only the 3rd parties, but not the owner's death or his partial or permanent disability if occurred in the course of accident. The policy does not contemplate any compensation to the owner himself from the Insurance Company. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Based on the above pleadings, the following points were framed for trial before the tribunal :

1. Whether the death of the deceased T.Abudl Rahim is the resultant of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.A.P.02-V-2725 as alleged in the petition.?

2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

In order prove the case of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents.

On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal having come to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by its driver and relied upon a decision of this Court reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vijayawada V. Doredla Satyanarayana And Ors 1997 (5) ALD 32 (DB) Allowed the O.P awarding a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-to the claimants with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization by directing the 2nd respondent- Insurance company to deposit the same. Aggrieved over the said award, this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company-2nd respondent in the O.P. Mr. T.Ramulu, learned standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the owner of the vehicle is not covered by the policy and further contended that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal has been over ruled in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company before the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is li