The principle of 'pay & recovery' should be applied in cases where the insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No.1648 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Shaik Hasanabi, who is wife of 1st petitioner, mother of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos.4 & 5, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 21.10.2012.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:

On 21.10.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased along with others was proceeding on a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 07TA 6030 & 6031, which was loaded with cotton bales, as a loading and unloading coolie from Devarampadu fields to go to Gullapalli and when they reached near Devarampadu fields, the driver of the tractor-trailer drove the same in a zig zag manner rashly and negligently and thereby, the tractor-trailer turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and others received grievous multiple injuries and later the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Narasaraopet. The police, Rajupalem P.S. registered a case in crime No.141 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the tractor-trailer. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending tractor-trailer. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Both the respondents filed written statements by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that the accident occurred during the subsistence of insurance policy with the 2nd respondent, as such, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent.

It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent violated the conditions of the policy by allowing unauthorized passengers to travel in the offending tractor-trailer, the 1st respondent did not pay premium to cover the risk of coolies, the trailer was not insured with the Insurance company, the driver of the 1st respondent was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the death of Shaik Hasanabi was caused by the vehicle i.e., tractor-cum-trailer bearing No.AP 07TA 6030 and AP 07TA 6031?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount against whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died in the accident arose out of the use of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, allowed the petition in part awarding an amount of Rs.3,93,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the 1st respondent only, and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent/Insurance company. Aggrieved against the exoneration of the Insurance company from the liability of payment of the compensation amount, the appellants/petitioners preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference