JUDGMENT :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The 2nd respondent/insurance company in MVOP No. 230 of 2013 preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1960 challenging the Award dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool mainly on the ground that the deceased P. Md. Subbatullah, the husband of the 1st respondent/claimant is unauthorized passenger in the lorry, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.

2. The appellant is the insurance company, respondents 1 to 4 are claimants, and the 5th respondent is the driver of the lorry.

3. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, but restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of P. Md. Subbatullah in a motor accident that occurred on 11.1.2010 at about 12.30 p.m. on N.H. 18, Thimmarjupalli Ghat within the limits of Orwakal Police Station.

4. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased P. Md. Subbatullah, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4 was a mechanic and pesh imam earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. On 11.1.2010, the Subbatullah alongwith his brother boarded a lorry bearing No. AP03 X 0961 at Allagadda to go to Kurnool, when the lorry reached Thimmarajupalli Ghat, the driver was unable to control the lorry, it was moved on the reverse direction instead of proceeding forward and that the Subbatullah and his brother got down from the lorry and tried to keep stones near rear tires to obstruct its movement towards reverse direction, in that process, the lorry dashed another stationed lorry of the 5th respondent left side, thereby the deceased crushed under the lorry. Thus, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the 5th respondent.

5. As the Subbatullah died leaving behind respondents 1 to 4, who are legal heirs claimed total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under various heads, but restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/- as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 5th respondent's lorry.

6. The 5th respondent remained ex-party. The appellant/insurance company filed counter denying material allegations calling upon the claimants to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in which the Subbatullah was travelling and the lorry turned turtle on the Subbatullah. The claimants/respondents 1 to 4 are disentitled to claim compensation as the Subbatullah was travelling as unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the unauthorized passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. The Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident dated 11.1.2010 took place because of rash and negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing No. AP-03-X-0961 as stated in the petition?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

8. During enquiry, on behalf of respondent 1 to 4, P.W. 1 was examined and got marked Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of the appellant/respondent No. 2, R.W. 1 was examined and marked Exs. B1 to B6.

9. Upon hearing argument of both Counsel, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was occurred only when the deceased got down from the lorry and made an attempt to obstruct its movement towards reverse direction by keeping stone near the rear tires of the lorry and when it hit the stationed lorry, the lorry turned turtle, fell down on the Subbatullah. The Subbatullah was only a third party, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation since the accident occurred only when the Subbatullah was on the road, but not in the vehicle.

10. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed raising several contentions mainly on the grou