Insurance companies are not liable for compensation if passengers are not covered by the policy terms, specifically under Act policy provisions.

1. The insurance company filed this appeal challenging the correctness of order dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Nizamabad in O P. No. 1173 of 2001.

2. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No. 1 is the wife, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the mother and father of the deceased K. Rajamouli who died in a motor vehicle accident on 24.4.2001 at 3.30 a.m. in the shivar of Devanpally village. While he was proceeding from Kamareddy towards Banswada in a jeep bearing No. AP 25 - F 1895 owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with the appellant insurance company. Due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the vehicle turned turtle when it reached shivar of Devanpally village as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. On the death of the deceased, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 moved the Tribunal by way of filing the said O.P. under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. The owner of the vehicle filed a counter contending that the jeep was duly insured with the insurance company and insurance policy was in force at the time of accident and as such, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company who was the respondent No. 2 in the O.P. also filed its counter denying all the material allegations. It is specifically pleaded that Act policy has been issued to the vehicle involved in the accident and as per the statement of the owner of the jeep, the vehicle is hired to Eenadu daily newspaper against the policy conditions and the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as an unauthorised passenger (fare paying passenger) at the time of accident in violation of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as per the provisions of the Act.

3. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for trial:
“(1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AP 25 - F 1895 by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?”

4. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW 1 and one Sangameshwar was examined as PW 2 who deposed that himself, deceased and the owner of the jeep and another travelled in the jeep for business purpose and while returning from Banswada, the jeep met with an accident. Apart from the above oral evidence, Exhs. A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The Assistant of the insurance company is examined as RW 1 and the advocate who is appointed as an investigator by the insurance company is examined as RW 2 and Exhs. B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the insurance company.

5. On the above evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal on point No. 1 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. On point No. 2, it was held that the gross income of the deceased who was running a cloth shop as per Exh. A4 was Rs. 2,18,965.95 per annum and after deducting all the expenditure, the net profit was arrived at Rs. 59,120.95. Total income of the deceased after adding the interest amount was calculated at Rs. 1,21,212.95 and after deducting one - third towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, his contribution to the family was assessed at Rs. 80,809. With regard to the liability of the insurance company, the Tribunal, in a slipshod manner, observed that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability from payment