JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2011 in MVOP No.645 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool, has preferred this appeal questioning the Tribunal’s Award.

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

3. The claimant had applied to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.04.2008.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 20.04.2008, the claimant and other hamalies were proceeding in the tractor-trolley bearing No.AP-21- N-3479 and 3480 (herein referred to as 'the offending vehicle') from the quarry with a load of slabs for unloading and after it reached Maddilety Swamy Temple at about 2.00 PM, the offending vehicle's driver drove it at high speed with rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the offending vehicle, as a result of which, it turned turtle by leaving the road on the left side, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his left leg, head and spinal cord, and other Hamalies also sustained injuries.

5. The 1st respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter, denying the manner and mode of the accident, the age and earnings and the medical expense of the claimant interalia contending that the offending vehicle's driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and valid permit to the vehicle at the time of the accident. The offending vehicle's owner paid no separate premium to cover the risk to the hamalies under the policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. The claimant colluded with the owner of the offending vehicle and, by suppressing the real facts, filed the petition for a false claim.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 got examined and marked Ex.B1 copy of the policy.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the driver's rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.47,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2.

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

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought to have noted that the policy does not cover the risk of the injured, who is hamali in the offending vehicle; Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from its liability.

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

12. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant/insurance company/ 2nd respondent ? Point :

13. 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 the insurance company or the claimant.

a. By considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, and the 2nd respondent rendered the insurance policy to the crime vehicle under the original of Ex.B1, which was in force as of the date of the accident.

b. The Tribunal fixed the compensation of Rs.47,000/- towards injuries sustained by the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest against respondents 1 and 2. Though the respondent/insurance company preferred the appeal, it has not questioned the quantum of compensation. The petitioner als