IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation and the recalculated compensation amount based on the deceased's age, future earning capacity, and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.10.2007 in O.P.No.478 of 2005 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners/claimants in the aforesaid O.P., which was filed by them seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of one Mr. Lakhan, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2003, while the deceased was travelling in a Lorry bearing No.AHT 5427, at Madannaguda, a Gas Tanker bearing No.KA 21 B 1296, which was coming from Chandanagar side, being driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the Lorry in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the head-on collision, the deceased and the drivers of both the vehicles along with other labourers who were travelling in the vehicle died on the spot.

4. On perusal of entire material on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 03.10.2007, awarded an amount of Rs.86,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the said order, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal.

5. Heard Sri Dhulipalla V.A.S. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, and Sri R. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased was working as a labourer and the said fact was supported by the Inquest Report. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and concluded that the deceased was not an earning member of the family. Further, without considering the age and future earning capacity of the deceased, the Tribunal has erroneously computed the compensation as Rs.86,000/-. He would further submit that the Tribunal dismissed the petition against respondent No.2-Insurance Company. According to him, the policy issued by respondent No.2-Insurance Company covers the risk of (6) persons under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, respondent No.2-Insuance Company is also liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2019) 2 SCC 192, Saroj Devi and others v. Narendra Singh and others, MANU/SC/1104/2023 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel and others, (2005) 6 SCC 172.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the insurance policy does not cover the ‘labourer’ travelling in the lorry as it covers only the two ‘workers’ in the lorry and the compensation was already paid to those two workers. As such, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition against respondent No.2.

8. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, having examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the claimants and on consideration of Exs.A.1 to A.3, found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.AHT 5427, in which the deceased was travelling. Further, the insurance company had filed a counter affidavit stating that since two persons namely, Saheb and Anil, who died in the accident, have already claimed the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, in Case No.75 of 2003, the claimants are not entitled for compensation from respondent No.2. Though the claimants herein have filed W.C.No.115 of 2003 for compensation, the same was dismissed as not-pressed and subsequently, the present O.P. was filed.

9. The learned Judge of the Tribunal found that since the premium was paid only on behalf of two labourers