JUDGMENT:

The appeal has been filed by the appellant/2nd respondent challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and award dated 23- 08-2006 in M.V.O.P.No. 836 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29-4-1998 at about 8.00 A.M the deceased Kashanna boarded the Van bearing No. AP 02 V 1266 to go to Veljal village on his personal work. When the said van came in the limits of Revally shivar, the driver of the said van drove it at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a culvert, due to which the van turned turtle and fell into a ditch resulting in grievous injuries to the said Kashaiah. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The deceased Kashanna was aged 60 years at the time of death and as he died in the van AP 02 V 1266 accident, the claim petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability.

3. The learned Tribunal on analyzing the evidence concluded that the deceased Kashanna died in road accident and awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000 against both the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

4. Heard.

5. The Insurer/2nd respondent, the appellant herein, contended that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger and that he is not covered under the policy of the insurance and hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation even under no fault liability. He further contended that the lower Tribunal erred in interpreting Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ‘the Act’) in fixing the liability on the appellant.

6. The record shows that the case against R2 to R5 was dismissed.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“whether the award of compensation to the claim petitioners passed by the Tribunal is not just and proper and erroneous and it needs to be set aside”?

8. The claim of the petitioners in the Tribunal is to grant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability. The contention of the 2nd respondent/appellant is that the deceased Kashaiah is a gratuitous passenger and that the vehicle is a goods vehicle and as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

9. The claim petition by the claimants in the Tribunal has been filed under Section 140 of the Act seeking to grant compensation under no fault liability. Section 140 of the Act was omitted by Act 32 of 2019 and prior to omission it read as under:

(1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall jointly and severally be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section.

10. The claim petition was filed by the claim petitioners in the Tribunal and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal in the year 2006 and Section 140 of the Act was in force as on the date of disposal of the claim petition. Section 140 of the Act does not impose any condition to be proved by the claim petitioners such as rashness or negligence, or unauthorised travelling. 11. The well settled proposition of law is that the provisions of award of no fault compensation is a departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for death or disablement caused on account of a motor accident. A close scrutiny of provision leaves no room of doubt that it remains part of compensation and such payment of compensation is depending upon the establishment of fault of the owner or the driver. The evidence adduced in the Tribunal clearly shows that the deceased Kashanna