1. Challenging the Award dated 01.07.2008 in O.P.No.103 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the Tribunal”), the 2nd respondent in the O.P/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited preferred the instant MACMA.

2 a) On factual side, on 22.04.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., when the deceased—K. Rajagopal was proceeding on lorry bearing No.KA 34 5528 from Sangareddy to Narsapur and when it reached near Ramachandrapur, he lost control over the lorry and dashed against the road side tree and consequently he died on the spot. It is averred that due to abrupt death of deceased, the claimants lost their breadwinner and became destitutes. With these averments, the claimants filed O.P.No.103 of 2007 under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry and claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

b) Respondent No.1/owner remained ex parte.

c) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying all the material averments made in the petition and urged to put the claimants in strict proof of the same. R2 contended that driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. R2 finally contended that claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal.

d) During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of claimants. RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of respondents.

e) The Tribunal on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with costs and interest at 6% p.a. under different heads as follows:

Loss of dependency	Rs.4,32,000-00
Loss of consortium	Rs.10,000-00
Loss of estate	Rs.5,000-00
Funeral expenses	Rs.3,000-00
Total	Rs.4,50,000-00

The liability is concerned, the Tribunal on the observations that deceased was a cleaner in the ill-fated lorry and he drove the vehicle and caused the accident on his own fault and that he had no valid driving licence and that Ex.B1—policy was in force but the terms and conditions of the policy were violated, held that appellant/Insurance Company has to pay compensation first and realise the same from the owner/insured.

Hence, the appeal by Insurance Company.

3) The parties in this appeal are referred as they stood before the Tribunal.

4) Heard arguments of Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company. Though notice to R1 to R5/claimants was served but there is no representation on their behalf, hence treated as heard. Notice to R6/owner unserved.

5) Castigating the award of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover from the owner/insured, learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that in this case admittedly deceased was only a cleaner but at the relevant time of accident he drove the vehicle without having valid driving licence and caused the accident on his own fault and the owner by allowing an unlicensed cleaner to drive the vehicle committed grave infraction of the terms of the policy and thus the Insurance Company does not attain any liability though policy was in force, but the Tribunal erroneously directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability.

6) In the light of above arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are:

1. When the accident was occurred due to the own fault of driver and resulted in his death, whether his L.Rs. can seek any compensation against the owner and insurer of the accident vehicle?

2. If the point No.1 is held in affirmative, whether the Tribunal can award compensation and if so, whether under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or under Mot