Occupants of a vehicle are not considered third parties under liability-only insurance policies, shifting the burden of compensation to the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.

These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 06.12.2012, passed in MVC Nos.467 and 468 of 2012, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. MFA Nos.23412/2013 and 23413/2013 are filed under Section 173 (1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 , by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Whereas, MFA Nos.20914/2013 and 20915/2013 are filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability fastened on it.

3. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund appearing for learned counsel Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy for the appellants/claimants, learned counsel Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar appearing for respondent No.1/Owner of Mahindra vehicle and learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 27.01.2012 claimant-Jagath Harijan (MVC No.467/2012) and claimant-Lakshmikantha Mahananda (MVC No.468/2012) (hereinafter both the claimants were referred to as the ‘deceased’) along with others were proceeding in the Mahendra Bolero Camper bearing registration No.AP-04/W-1826 (for short, ‘Mahendra Vehicle’) from Toranagallu towards KPCL along with goods. When the said vehicle reached near KPCL, NH-63 road, Kudithini, at that time, respondent No.1, being the driver of Mahendra vehicle, drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the said Mahendra vehicle turtled to the left side of road. Due to which, the claimants and others sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, both the claimants were shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary, where claimant-Lakshmikantha Mahananda was succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, another claimant- Jagath Harijan was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalaya, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, have filed the claim petitions seeking compensation.

5. The Tribunal considering the evidence available on record, allowed the claim petitions in part by awarding different amounts of compensation to each of the claimants by directing the Insurance Company to deposit the entire amounts along with accrued interest before the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that Ex.R1 is Insurance Policy, which is ‘Liability only policy’. The deceased have travelled in the Mahindra vehicle bearing registration No.AP-04/W-1826 as occupants. Therefore, the deceased being occupants travelled in the said Mahindra vehicle, are not be considered as third parties. Therefore, the risk is not covered under Ex.R1- Insurance Policy. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd., AND OTHERS VS. SHAMARAYA AND OTHERS , [MANU/KA/4690/2020], has further argued that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, but the owner of Mahindra vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prays for allowing of these appeals by fastening liability on the owner of Mahindra vehicle.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Owner of Mahindra vehicle submitted that risk of occupants in the said Mahindra vehicle is also covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in considering the insurance policy and has rightly fastened liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, prays for dismissal of these appeals.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants/ap