JUDGMENT

1. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited / Respondent No.3 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District (for short “the learned MACT”) filed the present appeal disputing sustainability of decree and order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the learned MACT, where under a claim made by the dependents and legal representatives of one S. Chinnayya (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), for his death in a motor vehicle accident for Rs.5,00,000/- was allowed for Rs.3,96,000/-. The appellant / Insurance Company is disputing the liability in all aspects.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claimants. Respondent No.5 is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 35 U 6039 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.6 is the owner of the offending vehicle.

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 remained as ex parte.

Case of the claimants:

3(i). On the fateful day i.e. 11.07.2012, the deceased boarded the offending vehicle as a quarry labourer along with the co-labourer and cleaner, when they were reached near the lands of Cheeluri Krishna, Cherukupalli Village, within the limits of Pachipenta Police Station, Vizianagaram District, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same, whereby the offending vehicle turned turtle and fell into water canal. Due to the said accident, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Hospital, Salur, but the doctors declared him as brought dead.

3(ii). Further case of the claimants is that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years earning Rs.3,600/- per month. The claimants are dependents and legal heirs. Hence, they are entitled for compensation. A case in Crime No.51 of 2012 registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted. Owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation.

Case of the Insurance Company:

4(i). Claimants shall prove their status as legal heirs of the deceased, occurrence of the accident due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants etc. relevant aspects.

4(ii). Further, specific case of the Insurance Company is that, the travel of deceased in the offending vehicle at relevant time was as an unauthorized passenger and the policy does not cover the risk of unauthorized passenger. The vehicle does not require any labour being hydraulic in its nature and the quantum of compensation claimed is exaggerated and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for want of compliance of policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle.

5. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 35 U 6039 driven by it‟s driver 1st Respondent resulting in death of the deceased?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Evidence before the learned MACT:

Findings of the learned MACT:

7. PW.1, wife of the deceased is not an eye witness to the accident.

8(i). P.W.2 is a co-labourer, who travelled in the lorry /offending vehicle along with the deceased. His evidence is clear as to occurrence of a