An 'Act only Policy' does not cover occupants' risk, establishing clear liability for compensation upon the vehicle owner in accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This appeal is filed by Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”) granting a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/-.

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 is that on 10.11.2015 the petitioner along with others was travelling in Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 from Hyderabad towards Nizamabad and when they reached near Bhiknoor Church gate at about 9.00 a.m. the driver of said vehicle has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the Tractor bearing No.TS-15-UB-2162 from its behind. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates of the said vehicle sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Government area Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there she was shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Secunderabad wherein she was treated as inpatient and was operated twice. The petitioner was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident and that she was doing tailoring work, Embroidery works etc., and that she was earning of Rs.20,000/- per month. She filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments with regard to occurrence of the accident, age, avocation of the petitioner and further contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the qualis and that there was contributory negligence of the driver of the Tractor and that the petition is bad for the non-joinder of owner and driver of the tractor. It is further contended that the driver of qualis does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner/Akthar Unnisa Begum received injuries in the road accident, due to rash and negligent driving of Toyota Qalis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

3. To what relief ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.C1. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.04.2021, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri T. Laxmikanth Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of qualis bearing No.AP-25-N-8866 and that the injured was travelling in the said vehicle as a passenger and that such risk is not covered by the Act policy under Ex.B1. He further submitted that the owner of the said vehicle has not paid any additional premium to cover the of risk of occupants in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the tractor and that contributory negligence has to be fixed on the driver of the tractor. He further conte