HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.3217 of 2009 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri P.Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and Sri P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants. 2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.3.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1184 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the appellant-Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 3. Claimants, who are legal representatives of deceased Dwarapureddy Rama Rao, filed M.V.O.P. under Section 166 of M.V. Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules claiming compensation for the death of one Dwarapureddy Rama Rao in a motor accident that occurred on 25.8.2005. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.8.2005 one K.Sanyasi Rao engaged lorry bearing No.ATT 7057 owned by the 2nd respondent herein for the purpose of transportation of kirana items for selling them in weekly santha. He also engaged labour – D.Ramarao, the deceased-Durgalamma, Smt.Kannabulli, T.Kondala Rao, T.Chinnam Naidu and others. After closure of santha, the labour, including deceased Rama Rao, engaged by Sanyasi Rao loaded kirana items in the crime vehicle and they were coming back. While so, at about 16.30 hours, the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when the lorry reached 2 Guthulaputtu turning, it proceeded towards the northern side of the road margin, fell into the road slope and turned turtle. As a result of which, Sanyasi Rao and labourers Rama Rao, Durgalamma, Kannabulli and Raju died on the spot while other labourers sustained grievous injuries. The dead bodies of the deceased and injured were shifted to Community Health Centre, Paderu. The S.H.O., Paderu, registered a case in crime No.52 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of I.P.C. 5. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was got marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company preferred this Appeal. 7. The grievance of the Appellant – Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation, in spite of the fact there are violations of the conditions of policy and also the Rules and provisions of the M.V. Act. In other words, he pleads that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation as they are gratuitous passengers. 8. Now the point that arises for determination is whether the award in M.V.O.P.No.1184 of 2006 dated 30.3.2009 suffers from legal infirmities warranting interference in the appeal? 9. P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed in her evidence that her husband was engaged as loading and unloading labour by 3 K.Sanyasi Rao, who engaged the lorry bearing No.ATT 7057 on 25.8.2005 for the purpose of transportation of kirana items to the weekly santha and while returning back, the vehicle met with an accident, in which her husband Rama Rao died. 10. P.W.2 – Chinnam Naidu deposed that he was engaged as a labour for loading and unloading purpose by deceased Sanyasi Rao and the said Sanyasi Rao has also engaged some other labourers including Durgalamma and Rama Rao and when the vehicle reached near Guthulaputtu Village, the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner whereby it went into a road margin and turned turtle, resulting in death of Sanyasi Rao, Durgalamma, Kannabulli and Rama rao and injuries to others including himself. A conjoint reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and entries made in Ex.A1 – attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2 – attested copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.A3 – attested copy of inquest, Ex.A4 – attested copy of charge-sheet, makes it clear that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. 11. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that deceased was a gratuitous passenger is concerned, it is the specific stand of the claimants that the deceased was engaged as labour for the purpose of loading and unloading of kirana items at weekly santha and one, Sanyasi Rao has engaged the crime vehicle for the purpose of transportation of kirana items. If the vehicle is engaged for a particular purpose, from a particular destination to a particular destination on hire, the person travelling in the vehicle along with goods comes under the category of owner of goods, more so when the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was not examined to disprove the 4 status of the claimant. Therefore, travelling of Sanyasi Rao along with kirana items cannot be found fault and the Insurance Company cannot be exempted from the liability on that point and he cannot be considered as gratuitous passenger. When the owner of the goods engaged labour for loading and unloading purpose, they will come under the category of employees. Ex.B1 – Policy covers the case of eight employees. When it covers eight employees and when there is material vide inquest report and F.I.R., the deceased U.Durgalamma, D.Rama Rao were engaged as labours for loading and unloading purpose, they cannot be considered as gratuitous passengers. 12. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Thanichintala Venkaiah1, this Court considered the legislative history of Section 95(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as the legislative history, before and after amendment, by Act 54 of 1994 of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of 1988 Act and having regard to the principles of interpretation, held: “In view of the aforementioned discussion and the observations of the Apex Court, I hold that the words 'any person' used in the pre- amended provisions of Section 147 of the new Act shall be interpreted to mean and include 'owner of the goods' and that under Section 147 of the pre-amending provisions of the new Act, the insurer is liable to pay compensation in the event of death or bodily injury to the owner of the goods also. The contentions advanced on behalf of appellant insurer are rejected and the point is answered accordingly.” 13. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Maruti and others 2 it was held that coolies carried in goods vehicle are entitled to compensation under Section 147(1) of the Act, more particularly in the background of the policy conditions wherein, the risk of the coolies for loading and unloading was not excluded. 1 2002 ACJ 485 (AP) 2 2012 ACJ 1408 5 14. Therefore, the trial court has rightly referred to treat the deceased as gratuitous passenger and awarded Rs.1,90,000/- towards loss of dependency to the claimant; Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the petitioner – 1st respondent herein being wife; and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and other incidental charges. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered view that the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal are based on settled principles, law and supported by oral and documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the Tribunal while passing the order. 16. Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without costs while confirming the order, dated 30.3.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1184 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Date : 23.01.2020 skmr