The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, 1988 as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, regarding the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured and the owner of the goods or his authorized representative who travels in the goods vehicle along with the goods.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.02.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Additional District Judge, Hindupur (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in M.V.O.P preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's Award.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a claim under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 455 A.P.M.V. Rules for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-on account of the death of Shaik Mohammad Rafiq (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.03.2005.

4. The claimants’ case is that on 18.03.2005 at about 01.00 PM, the deceased and Pamapalli Yusuf loaded the silk yarn bundles in the lorry bearing No.AP26-U-4698 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘offending vehicle') at Hindupur to go to Proddatur to sell silk. While the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as the owner of the silk bundles and when the offending vehicle reached Madimanugutta near Velugu Office, Kadiri, at about 11.45 PM, the offending vehicle’s driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the offending vehicle, resulting which the offending vehicle climbed a stone and fell to the side. Consequently, the deceased fell from the vehicle. He sustained severe injuries to his head and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. During the deceased's lifetime, he used to earn Rs.15,000/-per month from his silk yarn business. The 1st respondent, the owner, and the 2nd respondent, the Insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

6. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the material allegations in the petition and contended that the accident did not occur; the offending vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent. The offending vehicle’s driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The offending vehicle's driver was neither rash nor negligent in driving the lorry. The offending vehicle has no valid permit, fitness certificate, and R.C. The deceased was an authorized passenger in the offending vehicle. He was not carrying any goods with him. The claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased, and they are not the dependents of the deceased. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are not correct. The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 got examined, marked Exs.B1 and B2.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased died in the accident. It occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. The Tribunal held that claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,62,800/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents.

9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant’s defence that there is a violation of policy condition, as the injured was travelling as an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal's order is contrary to the Apex Court's Judgments, which stipulate that when there is a violation of policy condition that the insurance company cannot be made liable. The Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that no premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner of the goods also.

11. Controverting the submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Now the point for determination is:

(i) Whether the compensation awarde