JUDGMENT:

The appellants, who are claimants, filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.882 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dismissing the Original Petition filed for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of deceased Bichitra Kumar Sahoo in the accident that occurred on 09.09.2001.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. While the respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material allegations in the petition and contending that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary or proper party to the claim and that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

4. The 4th respondent filed counter, contending that on 09.09.2001 at about 9.20 hours, 14 ORs and one Inspector under the command of Inspector Daya Ram along with one C.I., one S.I., 4 P.Cs of Addateegala Police Station left for combing operation duty to Maredumilli Police Station area on Elcher truck requisitioned by Civil Police i.e. C.I.F., Addateegala, due to non-availability of APSRTC bus and that over a culvert in the uphill road curve the vehicle was blasted causing death of the deceased on the spot and since the blast occurred due to failure of the Civil Police in not providing security to the truck, the Civil Police should have been impleaded and not the 4th respondent and that all the post

1st claimant in accordance with the departmental instructions and that the 4th respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 5. The 5th respondent also filed counter denying the material allegations in the petition and contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a commercial goods vehicle, but not a passenger vehicle and that since the 1st respondent carried nearly 20 persons in the goods vehicle at the time of accident contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the 5th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The 5th respondent disputed the validity of the requisition and contended that since the Government took the vehicle on requisition, the Government alone is liable to pay compensation, but not the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent also disputed the claim and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the petition.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the deceased Bichitra Kumar Sahoo died in motor accident occurred on 09.09.2001 at 9.00 A.M. near Addateegala village while travelling in a Eicher Van bearing No.AP 31 T 4796 in the course of his employment for investigation, due to the land-mine blasted by the naxals?

2) Whether the petitioners being the dependants of the deceased Bichitra Kumar Sahoo, are entitled to the

3) To what relief?

Additional Issue dated 04.09.2003

1) Whether the death of the deceased in the van bearing No.AP-31-T-4796 resulted on account of the landmine blast arranged by the Nexalities and it will not come under the purview of Motor Vehicles Accidents claims as pleaded by the 2nd respondent?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On the other hand, no oral evidence was let in, but, Ex.B.1 and B.2 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

8. Basing on oral and documentary evidence and the judgments placed before it, the Tribunal, having held that the death of the deceased was an accidental death occurred during the course of use of a motor vehicle, had concluded that since there was no contractual liability to pay compensation in an accident occasioned by terrorist activity and as the deceased was travelling as passenger in the goods vehicle, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the 5th respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Having considered the fact that the claimants have received death-cum-retirem