The liability of an insurance company is subject to the coverage of risk and the subsistence of the policy by the date of the incident, and violations of policy conditions can affect the company's liability.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. Challenging the award and decree dated 31.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 773 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry (for short “the Tribunal”) the present appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent in the O.P. i.e. the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

3. The claimants, who are the wife, children and the mother of the deceased Kakkala Rambabu filed application under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, in a road accident which took place on 18.6.2007 at about 11.30 a.m. It is stated that on a fateful day i.e. on 18.6.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased Kakkala Rambabu and some other coolies loaded mud on the trailer bearing registration No. AP 05 AM 8279 and he sat on the mud load and travelled to unload the mud in the Palmolive field of the 2nd respondent situated behind Sree Venkateswara Tiles Works factory at Neeladriraopeta, Gandepalli Mandal, whereas the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the tractor in that process ran over matti dibba (stack of earth) in the field of the 2nd respondent, as a result of which, one electric wire touched the head of the deceased and hence the deceased fell down from the tractor and died on the spot and on a report given a case was registered as in Cr. No. 161 of 2007 under Section 304-A IPC against the 1st respondent on the file of Gandepalli Police Station. It is also stated that the deceased was doing coolie work and earning Rs.2,500/-. In view of the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants are put to loss which made them to file the present application.

4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent has filed written statement denying the material pleas taken by the petitioners and putting the petitioners to establish the same strictly and specifically and setting out its defences respectively.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No. AP05AM 8279 and AP05TT 1799?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount as claimed? If so, from which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

6. In support of their claim, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 and Exs.X1 to X3. For the contesting respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that that the respondents no. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable, whereas the 2nd respondent is vicariously liable for the act of the 1st respondent (subject to relevant income Tax Laws) to pay Rs.3,32,500/- as compensation with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company-3rd respondent.

8. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has failed to see that the labourers who are loading and unloading are only covered and they are not allowed to sit and travel on the vehicle involved in the accident and the tribunal would have treated the labourers and un-authorized passengers at the time of accident and also failed to say that except the driver no other person is allowed to sit and travel on the vehicle at the time of accident. He further submits that the tribunal has failed to see that the death of the deceased is not due to rash and negligent driving and it is only due to electric shock and also negligence b