An unauthorized passenger in a vehicle does not allow for compensation claims against the insurer, but the insurer must cover the claim amount with recovery rights against the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT:

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

Insurer preferred present appeal aggrieved by awarding compensation on account of death to the dependents/claimants. The Tribunal by judgment dated 20.03.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No.663 of 2009, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,06,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:

(a) The deceased was sitting beside driver on tractor bearing No.AP 37M 0522 after loading soil in tailor bearing No.AP 37X 4583. The tractor along with trailer proceed to destination, on the way, due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of tractor in the process of overtaking RTC bus, both tractor and trailer turned turtle into canal, resulting the deceased falling underneath the tractor and sustaining severe injuries. He later succumbed.

(b) Crime No.19 of 2018 was registered against driver of tractor for offence under Section 304A IPC and later, on investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Both tractor and trailer were insured with 4^th respondent. The deceased claimed to be aged 25 years and was earning as loading and unloading coolie about Rs. 3,600/- per month. The deceased wife, two minor children, father and mother instituted present claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with interest.

(c) Respondents 1 to 3, who are driver of tractor, owner of trailer and tractor respectively remained ex parte. 4^th respondent Insurance Company filed counter, inter alia, denying the manner in which accident occurred, besides contending that the deceased was unauthorized passenger on tractor, therefore, it amounted to violation of conditions of policy. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on it. It also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed.

(d) In support of the claim, wife of deceased got examined as P.W.1, independent eyewitnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6, X1 to X3. For respondent insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

(e) The Tribunal based on pleadings and evidence on record, framed following issues:

1. Whether the deceased –Jonnala Sesha Rao, died on 24.01.2008 in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 37M 0522 and AP 37X 4583, driver by its driver – 1^st respondent?

2. What was the age and income of the deceased?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

(f) The 1^st issue relating to the negligence came to be decided in favour of claimants based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A6 that the driver of tractor was responsible for the accident and but for his rash and negligent act, the same could not have occurred. Having come to the said conclusion, Tribunal proceeded to decide the 2^nd issue of income, though claim was made that deceased was earning Rs. 3,600/- per month, in the absence of any material to substantiate the same, it had adopted minimum wages as fixed for employment generation programmes of Government of India and assessed Rs. 3,000/- per month as earnings. Lastly, coming to 3^rd issue as to who would be responsible for paying the compensation, though 4^th respondent took stand that as deceased was unauthorized passenger and that there was clear violation of policy condition, the Tribunal fastened liability even on 4^th respondent along with respondents 2 and 3, who are owners of tractor and trailer.

(g) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Siva Sankar Rao Borra, learned counsel, appearing for respondents/