This appeal arises out of an order dated 17.01.2007 passed in O.P. No.1282 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge (FTCII), Khammam whereby the claim petition of the respondents herein was allowed with costs by granting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- besides the claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows:

The deceased was the driver-cum-owner of the lorry bearing No. AP-16-U-9144. On 20.05.1999, he was proceeding with his lorry with the load of iron pipes from Warangal and when he reached the outskirts of Tirumalayapalem village at 1.30 hours on R & B Road leading to Khammam from Warangal, a tractor bearing No. AP-36-T-6802 came in opposite direction, hit the tractor, being unable to avoid the accident due to narrowness of the road and further to save the lives of the driver of the tractor and another occupant of the tractor, he completely turned the lorry and in that process he lost control over it and ultimately it hit against a tree by the side of the road, as a result, he received grievous injuries over his head and other vital organs. He died on the spot. The cleaner sustained grievous injuries. The Police, Tirumalayapalem, on a complaint, registered a case in Crime No.48/99 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. The deceased was aged about 27 years by the date of accident. The deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month, after excluding maintenance of his lorry, his salary and salary of the cleaner. He was the only son to his parents. The said lorry was insured with the appellant-insurance company and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Thus the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation to indemnify the owner.

3. The appellant-insurance company filed counter disputing the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. They also disputed the manner of the accident, occurrence and the alleged involvement of the lorry and alleged that the deceased himself was negligent in driving of the lorry and was instrumental in causing the alleged accident. They denied that they issued a policy covering the risk of the deceased and the lorry. The insurance company would indemnify the liability of the deceased against third parties only. The insurance company is not liable to pay damages for the death of the deceased. They disputed that the claimants are the only legal heirs of the deceased. Further, the claim made by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant.

4. Considering the pleadings of both sides, the lower Tribunal had framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP-16-U-9144?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

5. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked for respondent-claimants. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 was marked for appellant- insurance company.

6. After conclusion of the trial, the lower Tribunal passed the impugned order as stated in Para 1, supra.

7. The lower Tribunal has based its finding that the accident had occurred on 20.5.1999 while the vehicle was being used in a public place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said vehicle, bearing registration No.AP-16-U-9144 and while Ex.B.1 policy was in force from 21.10.1998 to 20.10.1999. That the appellant-insurance company had collected premium under the head ‘employees’ in Ex.B.1 policy and as such the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation covering the risk of driver and cleaner working on the lorry. That deceased himself was the owner of the said lorry.

8. It is the case of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was not only a driver but also the owner of the accident v