Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise the defense of negligence against claimants, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party if they are related to the vehicle's owner.

JUDGMENT :

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.

Since both the appeals are arising out of the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), they are taken up together, heard analogously and disposed of by a common order.

2. The appeal in MACMA No.55 of 2022 is filed by the claimants assailing the Award, dt.29.10.2021 in MVOP.No.281 of 2017 for enhancement and to award just and fair compensation. The appeal in MACMA No.118 of 2022 is filed by the Insurance Company to set aside the award.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

Brief facts of the Case :

4. The claimants, who are wife and father of the deceased-S.Yadagiri, filed a petition under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) r/w Rule 455 of the APMV Rules, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 26.02.2017.

5. The case of the claimants is that on the fateful day, at about 09.00 hours, while the deceased was proceeding from Donkal Village towards Indalwai driving a tractor bearing No.AP 01 L 0758, upon reaching near Donkal Village Shivar, the deceased lost control over the tractor, as a result, the tractor turned turtle into the adjoining fields and the deceased came under the tractor and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

6. Basing on the complaint lodged made by the wife of the deceased i.e., 1^st claimant, a case in Cr.No.21/2017 was registered and investigation was conducted by the police.

7. It is the contention of the claimants that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, working as a driver and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., and used to contribute his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of the claimant, and on account of death of the deceased, the claimants lost their earning member and are undergoing financial hardship. The 1^st respondent being the owner and 2^nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

8. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the occurrence of the incident, profession and earnings of the deceased. It was further contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and as per the proviso under Section 147 of the MV Act, the policy shall not be required to cover an employee of the insured in respect of bodily injury or death arising out of and in the course of his employment and a special contract covering the risk is required by paying additional premium and in the instant case, there was no such special contract between the owner and the insurance company. It was further contended that as per Section 163A of the Act, the injured/deceased must be a third party for the insurance company to pay compensation, and as the deceased is the father of the owner of the vehicle, he is not a third party, as such, the claim under Section 163A is not maintainable. Furthermore, since the deceased himself was negligent, on that ground also the claim petition is not maintainable.

9. The Tribunal basing on the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the Yadagiri @ Yadaiah died in a road accident, due to involvement of the Tractor bearing No.AP 01 L 0758?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for?

3) To what relie