IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that unauthorized passengers traveling on top of a load are not covered under standard insurance policies, impacting liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award dated 08.06.2016 in M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (“Tribunal” for short) whereunder, the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation with regard to the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.09.2008, as against the original claim of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- towards the compensation.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioners in the M.V.O.P. No. 124 of 2012 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that:

(i) On 10.09.2008 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased and others went to coolie work to load mud in the tractor bearing No. AP-26-W-6128 and trailer bearing No. AP-26-D-2393 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) of B. Lakshmanna with driver and after loading mud at about 10.00 a.m. while returning, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. 5th respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the vehicle while negotiating a curve after passing Acharlapalle on Madanapalle- Nimmanapalle road and hit a culvert (mori). In the result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and the deceased and two others who were travelling on the top of the mud load of the offending vehicle, fell down and when the tractor fell on the deceased, he died on the spot and one P. Srinivasulu received injuries. In connection with the accident, a case in Crime No. 40/2008 against the 5th respondent was registered under Sections 337 and 304 (A) IPC before the J.F.C.M. Madanapalle.

(ii) Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing business, cultivation, coolie work and earning not less that Rs.20,000/- per month and also earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum in cultivation and also doing coolie work and contributing the same to the petitioners. The petitioners are solely depending upon the deceased. The 1st petitioner being the wife, lost her husband, the 2nd petitioner being the mother, lost her son and the 3rd petitioner being the daughter, lost her father. If the deceased had been alive, he would have provided the petitioners with all comforts and the petitioners are subjected to much mental agony and sleepless nights.

(iii) The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, the 3rd respondent is the concubine of the deceased and there is no relationship between the deceased and the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance policy is in force at the time of accident and the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondents 1, 2 and 5 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4. The 1st respondent got filed a written statement denying the allegations in the petition and contending in substance that the compensation claimed is excessive. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the 2nd respondent alone has to satisfy the award, if the petitioners are legally entitled to. The 1st respondent did not violate any conditions of the insurance policy.

5. The 2nd respondent/insurance company got filed a written statement denying the allegations and contending in substance that the 1st respondent obtained insurance policy from the 2nd respondent in respect of the offending vehicle under farmer’s package insurance to use the vehicle for his own agriculture purpose. The 1st respondent did not pay any premium to cover the risk of labourer, passengers and other inmates of the offending vehicle. The deceased and others were travelling in the offending vehicle by sitting on the top of the load of sand. The risk of the deceased was not covered und