HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (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 was that on 05.01.2018 at about 7:00 a.m., the deceased was driving motor bike bearing No.TS-16E-M4394 from Saloora towards Biloli and when he reached Saloora check post on Bodhan to Nanded road, one hog suddenly crossed the road and as a result, he took the vehicle to the left side, lost control over it and fell down from the vehicle, due to which he sustained severe injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bodhan and from there to Maxi Cure Hospital, Nizamabad where he died on 06.01.2018, while undergoing treatment. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The Respondent No.1/owner of the motor bike filed counter denying 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 accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and that the deceased was having valid driving license, and the vehicle was road worthy and that the vehicle was insured bearing policy No.417011/31/18/010877 and that in case, if the Court awards any compensation, it is the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation.

5. The Respondent No.2 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 present petition filed under Section 163-A is not maintainable as the income of the deceased is stated to be more than Rs.40,000/- per annum and that the driver of the motor bike is not a third party. Therefore the provisions of Section 163-A is not applicable to him. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the deceased and they also disputed the validity of policy and the driving license of the deceased.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether Mallepula Bhikshapathi Goud died in the motor accident while riding the motorcycle bearing No.TS16EM4394?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,24,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of M/s Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the deceased was a driver-cum-worker under the respondent No.1 and therefore, he is not a third party and thus, his claim cannot be covered under Section 163-A. He submitted that Section 163-A is applicable only to third parties and since the deceased is not a third party the same cannot be made applicable and that the tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation under the said section.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation by following the Second Schedule and therefore, he prayed to uphold the same.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the deceased is not a third party to the policy. If so, to what extent is the insurance company liable.

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interfer