A ‘Liability Only Policy’ does not cover risks associated with occupants of the vehicle, thus the Insurance Company is not liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Tirumala Devi Eada, J.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.11.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 17.07.2016 the deceased-Arkala Thirupathaiah went to attend an exam along with his friends by a car bearing No. AP-36-Q-3042 and were returning to Hanamkonda by the same car, after crossing Vivera Hotel on NH-163 near Bhongir, another Car bearing No.TS-05-UB-4854 was proceeding towards Hyderabad, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, consequently the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling lost control and hit against the other car due to which the deceased sustained grievous head injury apart from other grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Aditya Hospital, Uppal, wherein he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 40 years and was working as an Associate Professor in Chaitanya Degree College (Autonomous), Kishanpura, Hanamkonda and was drawing a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. They sought compensation of Rs.52,80,000/-.

4. The respondents No.2 and 3 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 is holding valid driving license and the said car is insured with respondent No.4 and that it is only respondent No.4 who is liable to pay compensation and that the respondent No.1 being indemnified by respondent No.4 is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The respondent No.4-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that there was collusion between two Cars bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and TS-05-UB-4854 and that there was no negligence on part of respondent No.1 who was the driver of Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the other car. They further contended that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle does not possess valid driving license and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indica Car bearing No.AP-36-Q-3042 resulting in death to Arkala Thirupathaiah?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, at what rate?

3. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,51,790/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard the submission of Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, learned coun