The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company can recover compensation from the owners of the offending vehicle after payment of compensation to the claimants if the deceased travelled in the vehicle as a representative of the owner of goods.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 03.04.2013 in MVOP.No.321 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur (for short 'the Tribunal'), the Oriental Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P. preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's Award.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The petitioners filed a claim under sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V.Rules for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing the death of Yerramsetty Nagaraju (hereinafter be referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident.

4. The claimant's case is that the deceased worked as a Sweeper in a private college at Yanamalakuduru and used to earn Rs.3,300/- per month. On 06.06.2010 at about 07.00 PM, the deceased, his wife, daughter and one Prasad boarded at Chilakaluripeta in a lorry bearing No.AP27Y6449 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') by paying Rs.700/- towards transportation charges of the said luggage to go to Vijayawada to shift their family along with their luggage, i.e., household articles like cots, clothes, cookware, chairs and other household utensils etc. When the offending vehicle reached Atmakuru village, the offending vehicle’s driver drove it rashly and negligently and applied sudden breaks carelessly; as a result, the lorry turned turtle; the deceased and others fell from the lorry, and the deceased died on the spot due to multiple injuries all over his body. The other three goods owners travelled in the lorry died on the spot. A case was registered in Cr. No.94 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. by Station House Officer, Mangaligiri against the offending vehicle’s driver.

5. Respondent No.3 remained exparte.

6. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statements separately. The 1st respondent submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver; he had a valid driving license at the time of the accident; the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Hence the 1st respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

7. The 2nd respondent/insurance company submitted that there was no rash and negligent on the part of the offending vehicle's driver; the driver had no proper driving license; the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.A1 to A7, and Exs.X1 to X3, and on behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.B1 and B2.

9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and hence the deceased died. The Tribunal held that petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the petition date against the respondents.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the records.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence of the insurance company. The offending vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrier, and passengers are not allowed; the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has not observed a clear violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability on the insurance company instead of exonerating its liability by considering the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. The Tribunal also has not considered Exs.X1 to X3 and has not properly gone through the F.I.R. and charge sheet, which clearly shows that the offending is a goods-carrying vehicle and the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. The Tribunal has not obse