The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 147, and the application of these provisions to determine the liability of the insurance company and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.

This Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27.08.2007, in O.P. No.741 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by the un-successful second respondent therein, which is the New India Assurance Company Limited.

2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are no other than the claimants, who filed O.P. No.741 of 2001 seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased namely Mathangi Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who happened to be the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent respectively. Third respondent herein is the owner of the Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04-F-2792 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). He did not contest the present Appeal though there was service of notice.

4. The case of the respondents/claimants in O.P. No.741 of 2001 before the Tribunal, according to the averments in the Petition filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) is that on 02.05.2001, the deceased and other coolies were travelling by Lorry bearing Registration No.MH-04-F-2792 of Maharashtra carrying a weight load of stone crusher structure towards Peddapariya. When the said lorry carrying stone crusher came into contact with 11 KV Electric Live Line on 02.05.2001 at 05:15 p.m. near Peddapariya Railway Station due to electrocution, the said Mathangi Venkateswarlu and the driver of the offending vehicle died instantaneously on the spot. Some other coolies who were traveling in the Lorry jumped out from the lorry and escaped from electrocution. The incident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. The said Lorry was insured by the first respondent with the second respondent, as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e., the claimants. Hence, the Petition by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. Second respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a counter contending in substance that the accident was not occurred due to the fault of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04-F-2792. The policy number mentioned in the claim petition did not tally with the series of the policy issued by the second respondent. Second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, unless it is proved that the driver had valid driving license to drive the vehicle. Petitioners have to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and the compensation claimed by them is excessive.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the pleaded accident was occurred causing the death of the deceased Mathangi Subbaramaiah and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of Leyland tusker turbo Trailor Open bearing Regn.No.MH-04-F-2792 which belonging to the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether R-1 insured his Lorry bearing Regn.No.MH 04-F-2792 with 2nd respondent/Insurance company by the date of accident, and if so whether the Policy covers the risk of the deceased?

(3) Whether the petitioners are in principal entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? (

4) To what relief?

8. The Tribunal found a mistake in Issue No.1 with regard to name of the deceased as such amended the issue as follows: Whether the death of the deceased victim in this case Mathangi Venkateswarlu was out of the use of the motor vehicle bearing No.MH-04-F-2792 belonging to the first respondent?

9. On behalf of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal, PW.1 an