The insurer is jointly liable for compensation unless it proves a breach of policy conditions, emphasizing statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.)

Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Order, dated 02.12.2005, passed in O.P. No.329 of 2001 by the Chairman, I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal, while dealing with the claim laid by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act'), for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of the death of one Potluri Madhava Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who happened to be husband of the 1^st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, and son of the 5^th petitioner therein respectively, declining to fix joint and several liability against both the respondents, directed the 1^st respondent/insured alone to pay the compensation amount of Rs.9,71,844/- to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization and also apportioned their respective share of the compensation amount .

2. The aappellants herein are none other than the claimants, and the respondents herein are the insured and the insurer before the Tribunal.

3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The deceased was healthy and active, having worked as a Junior Assistant in the Works Manager Office at the Zonal Workshop, APSRTC, Kovur, before the accident. He is the sole breadwinner for the family and earned a salary of Rs.7,445/- per month. On 23.03.2011, at 10:10 a.m., while the deceased, along with two others (petitioners in the connected O.P.Nos.37 and 377 of 2002), were travelling in a Tata Sumo with registration No.AP-11-F-2228 (hereafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), its driver operated the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, and collided with a turtle lorry, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to the other occupants of the vehicle. Consequently, the petitioners submitted the Claim Petition before the Tribunal.

5. The 1^st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the 2^nd respondent. The owner of the car remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. The 2^nd respondent/insurer opposed the claim and defended the usual defence that there was no rash and negligence by the offending vehicle's driver. The offending vehicle is a private car; therefore, the policy does not cover the deceased. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the Petition.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial in O.P.No.329 of 2001:

1. Whether the accident in question occurred, if so, was it due to the fault of the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-11-F-2228?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of the trial, all the 3 Petitions, i.e., O.P. No.329 of 2001 and O.P. Nos.37 & 377 of 2002 were clubbed together, and on behalf of the petitioners therein, PWs.1 to PW.5 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. On behalf of the contesting 2^nd respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked.

9. The police filed a final report in Crime No.170 of 2001 at Kodavalur Police Station for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC. The report establishes that the driver of the offending vehicle acted rashly, and the police have not referred to the matter as a mistake of fact.

10. The seating capacity of the offending vehicle is 8, and the car was insured as a private car; the policy was in force on the date of the accident. Ex.B-1 is the attested true copy of the insurance policy under which the offending vehicle was insured with the 2^nd respondent/insurer. One N. Sreenivasulu, who works as an Administrative Officer in the office of the 2^nd respon