THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A. No.1641 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2014, the 2^nd respondent therein/Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.03.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP-23-AD-8986. It is stated that on 19.03.2012, at 10.00 P.M., when the deceased was returning from field by travelling in crime vehicle, the driver of the Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, it turned turtle, deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. A case was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle.

4. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as agriculture labourer at the time of accident. The petitioners solely depended on the income of the deceased and due to sudden demise, the family suffered financially and also lost love and affection. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent No.3, the driver of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter affidavit denying the manner of accident, death, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the driver was not having valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident, which is in violation of the conditions stipulated in the insurance policy.

6. Based on the pleadings of both sides, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents, RWs1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1, B2 and X1 and X2. The learned Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.6,00,000/- with an interest @7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the Award and Decree dated 31.01.2017.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that the appellant has no liability to pay any compensation for the reason that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger, sitting on side of driver seat and there is no coverage under the Insurance Policy covering the risk of the deceased and contended that there is no dispute regarding the nature of the accident and involvement of the tractor and that the deceased was a labourer and travelling in the said tractor. It is also not in dispute that the material in the said vehicle was unloaded and the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle after unloading and returning to his house. The only contention of the appellant is that the deceased was travelling in the empty vehicle after unloading the material, as such, the policy is not applicable to the deceased and the Insurance Company is not liab