THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A. No.670 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 29.04.2021, passed in O.P.No.3128 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (in short” Claims Tribunal”).

For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

2. Before the Claims Tribunal the claimant filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity the M.V.Act) seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on death of his daughter, 4 years, in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated by the claimant that on 18.05.2014 when his daughter and wife and other relatives were proceeding in a Omni Quails Van bearing No.AP-32-D-0300 towards Toopran side, and when the said vehicle reached near Check Post, Medchal the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit an unknown vehicle while it was taking a turn towards Shamirpet, as a result of which there was head on collusion. Due to the impact of the accident, the inmates of Qualis vehicle i.e. deceased-Rajeswari and her mother sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The other inmates of the Qualis vehicle and the driver also sustained injuries. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Qualis vehicle bearing No.AP-32-D-0300, the claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said vehicle.

4. Before the Claims Tribunal the 1st respondent- owner of the vehicle stood ex parte, whereas the 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner.

5. Before the Claims Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

6. The Claims Tribunal court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.3,93,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-

insurance company preferred the present appeal.

7. The appellant-insurer mainly contended that the policy was an Act policy issued for a private car, as such the risk of occupants of private car does not cover. Except the driver, owner and cleaner, all others are third parties to the policy. Under statutory liability the insurer covers only third party liability and the passengers carried in a public service vehicle, and the passengers of a private vehicle does not cover. In support of their contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on decisions reported in (1) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Syed Rehamat Ali and (2) Chacko Vs. Jose and united Insurance Company Vs. Tilak Singh, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the occupants of a private vehicle as well as pillion rider of a two wheeler were not covered by the policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, but the trial Court erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company.

7. Heard both the Counsel and perused the record and also order of the trial Court.

8. Ex.B1 is the copy of the policy and Ex.B2 is the attested copy of terms and conditions of the policy. The Claims Tribunal held that the vehicle was passengers vehicle and the deceased was a third party, as such insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

9. PW1 is the father of the deceased and PW2 is the brother-in-law of PW1 and brother of the complainant. According to the PW1, nine persons were travelling in the offending vehicle against its seating capacity. It was suggested to PW1 that since more than nine persons were travelling in the car against the seating capacity the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.