IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer must prove any policy exclusions regarding coverage for individuals injured in accidents, failing which they remain liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, challenging the order and decree dated 27.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 710/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, wherein the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.06.2009.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the trial Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.06.2009.

4. The facts show that the petitioner has been working as cleaner on the bus bearing No. AP 05 X 2277 and on 10.06.2009 at about 10.00 p.m. he along with the 1st respondent started on the said bus, and the bus reached Sabbavaram outskirts, 1st respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes, as a result, the petitioner, who sat in front portion of the bus, came out of the bus and fell on the road and back wheels of bus ran over his both legs and he received grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and for better treatment he was admitted in Chandana Hospital, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petitioner was treated as an in-patient for one month and he incurred a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner is earning Rs.3,000/- per month by the date of accident and due to accident, he totally depend on others.

5. The respondents No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the injured, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, contended that the said bus was not insured with the 3rd respondent and it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle.

7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed additional written statement, contending that the claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 166 of M.V. Act is not maintainable as he received injuries due to his own negligence. The insurance policy does not cover the risk of the petitioner, because, the petitioner is not a third party.

8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. bus bearing No. AP 05 X 2277 by its driver/1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

9. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.X-1 to X-3. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked.

10. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.X-1 to X-3, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-8, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation against the respondents 1 to 3.

11. The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the insurance policy i