JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.73 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum- II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent/United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool, has preferred this appeal fastening liability on it.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. for convenience.

3. The claimants filed the claim application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requesting to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing the death of Kuruva Hanumanthu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who died in the Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 21.06.2004.

4. The claimant's case is on 21.06.2004, after loading the sand in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP-21-V-3698 and AP-21-B- 0368 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') of the 1st respondent, which is insured with the 2nd respondent; the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden breaks to avert the cattle coming across the road at Sambagallu village. As a result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and fell on its right side. Due to this, the deceased and Golla Chinna Purushotham, who was on the sand in the offending vehicle, the offending vehicle fell on the deceased, and the deceased received grievous injuries to his neck and all over the body. While the deceased was being shifted to a Government hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed counter-denying the allegations in the petition, including the age, income of the deceased and the manner of the accident. The offending vehicle was not insured by the 2nd respondent. The offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The accident occurred due to the careless and negligent attitude of the deceased only. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle by sitting on the sand, which was loaded in the offending vehicle, which clearly shows his negligence. The offending vehicle is used against the terms and conditions of the policy and M.V.Act. The compensation claimed is highly excessive.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 got examined and marked Ex.B1 copy of the policy with consent.

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. The deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The said finding of the Tribunal is not dispute, it attained finality. As the facts relating to the accident need not be referred and discussed. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.4,50,500/- with proportionate interest, costs @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization against the 1st respondent. Still, the Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to pay the entire compensation amount and later recover the same from the 1st respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations.

10. Now the point for determination is, Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the 2nd respondent/insurance company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner despite holding that the 2nd respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation?

Point :

11. From the reading of the grounds of appeal and submissions made on behalf of either side, it can be seen that the following findings are not disputed by either the insurance company or claimants.

a. The deceased and PW.2, who loaded sand in the offending tractor-trailer, travel