JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2011 in MVOP No.129 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimants have preferred this appeal for not fastening liability on the 3rd respondent/insurance company.

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

3. The petitioners filed the application under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Kankipati Ramadevi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who died in a motor vehicle accident.

4. It is the claimant's case that the deceased was 30 years and she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing coolie work. On 09.03.2010 in the morning, the 1st respondent, the driver of tractor bearing No.27Y3706 and trailer bearing No.AP27Y3707 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') was carrying the deceased and others as coolies to the Bengalagram field of one Kamma Lakshmi Narayana for coolie work of loading Bengalgram into trailer and unloading later. The 1st respondent drove rashly and negligently at 11.30 AM when they reached the tobacco field of Damacharla Sreenu, the offending vehicle turned turtle. As a result, the deceased and others fell. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. A case is registered against the offending vehicle’s driver. As per the insurance policy for the offending vehicle, the liability of six coolies for loading and unloading operation, is covered.

5. Respondents 1 and 3 filed counter-denying the allegations in the petition. The 2nd respondent adopted the same. In the counter of respondents 1 and 3, it is stated that the 1st respondent was very slow at the time of the accident; he was a well-experienced driver; had a valid driving license to the driver; the insurance policy covered the tractor and trailer.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5; on behalf of respondents, RW.1 got examined and marked Exs.B1 to B7. 3rd respondent was permitted to take all the defence available to 2nd respondent per the orders passed in IA.No.505 of 2011 under Sections 149 and 170 of the MV Act.

7. 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 Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2. The petition is dismissed against the 3rd respondent. The respondents do not assail the said findings of the Tribunal by filing an appeal or cross-objections. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the claimants have not disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the driver had a non-transport license only and violated the policy conditions; at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not carrying any goods. As per the policy terms, the legal liability for coolies is applicable when they are employed for loading and unloading operations. The appellants were engaged as coolies for loading and unloading Bengal gram bags into the offending vehicle.

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 not fastening the liability on the Insurance Company?

Point:

11. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the appellant's company have not seriously disputed the quantum of compensation awarded. As already observed, there is no serious dispute regarding the manner of the accident. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts relating to the accident.

12. The insurance company contends t