The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles, based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and case laws.

JUDGMENT :

NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

1. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 07.01.2005, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 78 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) wherein an amount of Rs.2,43,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. against the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally.

2. Heard Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the Original Petition.

4. The petitioners i.e. wife, parents and minor child of a deceased coolie filed the above said O.P stating inter-alia that on 23.04.2000 while the deceased (husband of the 1st petitioner) was returning from Talupulamma Lova in a tractor-cum-trailer bearing registration No. AP5T 5381/5382, the driver of said vehicle (R1) suddenly applied brakes, as a result the deceased fell down from the vehicle and succumbed to injuries on the way to the Hospital. It is further stated that the petitioners sustained loss of source of income due to death of the bread winner in the accident and that the 1st respondent as the driver-cum-owner and 2nd respondent being insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation quantified at Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. The O.P was contested by both the appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the above said tractor and trailer.

6. On behalf of the claimants, Smt. M. Venkata Lakshmi, wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, the father of the deceased as PW-2 and one P. Nukaraju, a direct witness to the incident as PW-3 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, Legal Assistant of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim by awarding a compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- while holding that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay same. The Tribunal further directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the said compensation and provided that it can recover the amount so paid from respondent No. 1, after proving the breach of policy conditions.

8. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company while referring to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. Sections 146, 147 and 149 etc. inter-alia, contended that owner of the vehicle is statutorily obligated to obtain an insurance for the vehicle to cover third party risk. He submits that wherever there is coverage, it would be as per the terms of the contract and covers the risk to that extent only. He submits that Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a mandatory provision providing for obtaining a policy of insurance covering third party risk other than the contracting parties to the Insurance Policy. He submits that limits of liability as provided under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers the third parties travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods as owner or representative of the owner of the goods, but would not cover un-authorized passengers/gratuitous passengers who travel in the goods vehicle, for hire or otherwise. He submits that the risk of the person, who is not covered under the policy cannot be fastened on the insurance company, more particularly, in case of an un-authorized passenger, who is travelling in a goods vehicle. He submits that in the present case, the deceased is an unauthorized passenger travelling in a tractor-cum-trailer, which is a goods vehicle at the time of the accident. He further submits t