Ex-gratia and other benefits paid by the Government cannot be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

V. Sujatha, J. - The appellants, who are claimants, filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2006 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 883 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, granting compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum on compensation amount from the date of the petition till realisation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

2. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the death of Suresh Yadav (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a motor accident that occurred on 09.09.2001. On 09.09.2001, the deceased along with other CRPF Constables travelled in a van bearing No. AP-31-T-4796 being driven by the 1st respondent, in the course of their employment for investigation purposes and when the vehicle reached near Maredumilli area, suddenly landmine arranged by the Naxalites blasted, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No. 28 of 2001 was registered by Maredumilli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302/149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act against unknown P.W.G. extremists. As on the date of death, the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Hence, the claim petition.

3. While the respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material allegations in the petition and contending that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary or proper party to the claim and that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

4. The 4th respondent filed counter, contending that on 09.09.2001 at about 9.20 hours, 14 ORs and one Inspector under the command of Inspector Daya Ram along with one C.I., one S.I., 4 P.Cs of Addateegala Police Station left for combing operation duty to Maredumilli Police Station area on Elcher truck requisitioned by Civil Police i.e. C.I.F., Addateegala, due to non-availability of APSRTC bus and that over a culvert in the uphill road curve the vehicle was blasted causing death of the deceased on the spot and since the blast occurred due to failure of the Civil Police in not providing security to the truck, the Civil Police should have been impleaded and not the 4th respondent and that all the post death benefits of the deceased have already been paid to the 1st claimant in accordance with the departmental instructions and that the 4th respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

5. The 5th respondent also filed counter denying the material allegations in the petition and contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a commercial goods vehicle, but not a passenger vehicle and that since the 1st respondent carried nearly 20 persons in the goods vehicle at the time of accident contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the 5th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The 5th respondent disputed the validity of the requisition and contended that since the Government took the vehicle on requisition, the Government alone is liable to pay compensation, but not the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent also disputed the claim and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the petition.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the deceased Suresh Yadav died in motor accident occurred on 09.09.2001 at 9.00 A.M. near Addateegala village while travelling in a Elcher van bearing No. AP-31-T-4796 in the course of the employment for investigation purpose driven by R.1 and the vehicle was suddenly land-mine blasted by the naxals, as a result of the said motor accident the deceased and 4 other constables died on the spot?

2) Whether the petitioners being the dependents