THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.976 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 25.12.2010 at about 6:10 a.m., the deceased was going to Thandur on vehicle bearing No.AP-28W-6218 as a Supervisor-cum- representative of owner of the goods i.e., coal which was being transported from Kothagudem to Thandur, and the vehicle reached NH-9, the driver of the said vehicle has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to a lorry which was already stranded across the road, as a result of which the deceased sustained head injuries and died.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased used to work as Supervisor-cum-cleaner of lorry and that he has also paid Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner which includes the monthly wages of Rs.5,000/-. It is further contended by the respondent No.1 that the risk of paying compensation if any would be covered by the respondent No.2 and that he is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further denied that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. It also disputed stating that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident occurred on account of the rush and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Goods Carrier bearing No.AP-28W-6218?

2. Whether the offending vehicle driver was having effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident?

3. Whether the offending vehicle was having proper records at the time of the alleged accident?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation?

And if so, from whom and if so to what extent?

5. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,17,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anantha Chary Kurella, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the DCM vehicle bearing AP-28W-6218 as it went and hit against a stationed lorry. He further argued that surprisingly, the tribunal has converted the petition that was filed under Section 166 to that of Section 163-A, and has fixed the liability on the Insurance Company under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is not permissible under law. He further argued that it is a settled law, that the Tribunal cannot suo-motu convert the petition filed under Section 166 to that of Section 163-A. He has also submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even in case of a gratuitous passenger, pay and recovery can be ordered and that