The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claimants would not be entitled to any compensation under the provisions of M.V. Act as well as the Workmen’s Compensation Act since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, but the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation determined and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

G. SRI DEVI, J.

1. Challenging the award and decree, dated 17.11.2007, passed in O.P. No. 333 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge at Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”) the claimants filed the present appeal.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellants/claimants, who are the wife and children of one Bhukya Somla (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 10.12.2004. It is stated that on that day after completion of loading and unloading labour work on the Tractor-Trailer bearing No. AP-36-U-775 and 776, the 1st claimant and her deceased husband were returning home in the same tractor, when the said tractor reached at the outskirts of Gudur, the driver of the Tractor observed that another vehicle was coming in the opposite direction and when he tried to give a way to the said vehicle, in view of Road Dam, there was a jerk to the Tractor, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out of the tractor on the road and the rear tyre of the vehicle ran over his head and that he died on the spot. Basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 132 of 2004 has been registered against the driver of the Tractor. Since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent, the claimants filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said Tractor-Trailer.

3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company filed a counter denying the petition averments and contended that the deceased and others were traveling in a goods vehicle as un-authorized passengers and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is also contended that the amount claimed is excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP-36-U-775 and 776 by its driver or due to negligence on part of the deceased himself?

2. What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of his death?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondent, RW-1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that even though the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer, the claimants would not be entitled to any compensation under the provisions of M.V. Act as well as the Workmen’s Compensation Act since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.

8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the tractor-trailer.

9. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has observed that the deceased and PWs. 1 and 2 were traveling in the tractor of the 1st respondent at the time of accident for execution of a road work taken up by a Contractor. The Tribunal further held that since the deceased was traveling in the tractor-trailer as an unauthorized passenger and that too the claimants failed to implead the Contractor as a party to the proceedings, they would not be entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

10. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet