The insurance company's liability to pay compensation to third party injured does not cease even if there is a violation of policy conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.387 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent/insurance company filed this appeal questioning the fastening of the liability on it.

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

3. The petitioners filed the claim application under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one K. Chittemma (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased'), who died in a motor vehicle accident.

4. The 1st petitioner is the husband, and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning a minimum of Rs.100/-per day by doing coolie work. On 21.11.2006 at approximately 08.30 AM, the deceased, while going to the coolie work sitting behind the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA.07-653 and Tractor KA.07-654 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle'). Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and applying sudden brakes, the deceased fell from the Tractor. The wheels of the Tractor ran over her, causing severe injuries. She was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Aragonda; then to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and succumbed to injuries on the same day at 11.30 AM. A case was registered against the offending vehicle's driver vide Cr.No.65 of 2006 of Thavanampalli Police Station.

5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle was slowly driving the same but the deceased suddenly attempted to get down from the Tractor and had fallen on the road. The Tractor and trailer of the first respondent were insured with the 2nd respondent; the policy was in force as on the date of accident; the policy covers the risk to the third party and that offending vehicle’s driver has got a valid driving license to drive the Tractor and trailer. The compensation claimed is excessive.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that the driver of the first respondent has no valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle and thereby violated the conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed is excessive.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4; on behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.B1 and X1.

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 Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.4,56,000/-with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that the Tribunal ought to have noted that, as per the averments of the claimants themselves, the deceased sat behind the driver of the Tractor, which is prohibited under law. The Tribunal ought to have noted that as per Exs.A1, A2 and also PW.2, who is an eye witness, the deceased sat on the plank, which is the back side of the driver of the Tractor and the same is not permitted under law. In that view of the matter it ought to have held that the deceased also contributed on her part in causing the accident. The Tribunal below should have noted that the Tractor provides a single seat meant for the driver only but not others. In that view, Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from its liability.

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

11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the material av