JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order 16.07.2010in MVOP No.336 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum –IV Additional District Judge, Anantapur (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience.

3. The claimant has filed a petition under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.30,000/-on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.05.2000.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 24.05.2000 at about 3.20 AM, he boarded the bus bearing No.MEK 9909 (hereinafter refer to as ‘the offending vehicle’) to go to his village. When the offending bus reached Aparna Cloth Centre, its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same and caused the accident. As a result, he received grievous injuries and became permanently disabled.

5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the bus, remained exparte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed written statement, contended that there is no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The accident was the result of the claimant himself who was knowingly boarded on the top of the bus by stretching his legs outside and the bus was over loaded with 105 passengers. There was violation of the conditions of the policy. The respondent denied the earnings of the claimant so also the medical expenses incurred by him. The liability is strictly subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 & Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but got marked Ex.B1 policy copy.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, and granted compensation of Rs.27,000/-with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the 1st respondent and the petition against 2nd respondent is dismissed without costs.

9. Heard both the learned Counsel. Perused the record.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the tribunal erred in fixing the liability against the 1st respondent only and dismissed the petition against the 2nd respondent even though the policy was in force as on the date of accident; the tribunal ought to have granted interest from 10.09.2002 to 17.05.2004.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations.

12. While answering the issue No.1, the tribunal observed that the claimant had sustained injuries only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus belonging to the 1st respondent. The tribunal while answering the issue No.2 observed that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.27,000/-and 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation and 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver is not challenged by the respondents in O.P by filing appeal or cross objections. The said finding has attained finality. It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, Ex.B1 policy was in force.

13. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the tribunal erred in not fastening the liability on the insurance company?

POINT:

14. It is the contention of the insurance company that there is the violation of the policy and therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. The evidence on record shows that there were about 70 passengers travelling in the offending bus and the capacity of the bus is only 53 (52+1) as per the policy under Ex.B1. The tribunal observed that without h