HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3501 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.180 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, questioning the quantum of compensation and also exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was filed by the petitioners, who are parents, the brother and the sister of the deceased G.Venkata Ramana consequent on his death in a motor accident when he was said to be employed as a cleaner on a private bus bearing No.AP 03 V 1341 on 17.11.2001. The Insurance Company has contended that the policy does not cover the risk of the cleaner; it only covers the risk of the passengers, driver and conductor only. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal below has granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. 3. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation? 4. POINTS: There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and it covers the risk of driver, conductor and 50 passengers. The fact that the deceased was unmarried is also not in dispute. Mainly the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claim of PW.1, who is the mother of deceased, that the deceased was a cleaner and the claim petition was filed on the said basis and consequently the lower Tribunal has rightly accepted the contention and dismissed the claim. Evidently, the bus that was involved in the incident is a private travels bus. In order to see as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company is to be there or not, it is essential to see as to what are the duties that were done by the deceased on the bus. PW.1 is evidently a laywoman and the nature of the duties, which were said to have been discharged by the deceased as a cleaner, which she has stated cannot be taken as conclusive. It is common knowledge that whenever a private travels bus takes a policy of Insurance they do not have any separate conductor, and the driver and the cleaner will be running the bus and the cleaner also discharges the duties as a conductor in getting the passengers seated and loading of the luggage. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the evidence of PW.1, who is a laywoman that her son was a cleaner, cannot be taken as conclusive. It requires further evidence to be taken as to whether apart from nature of duties performed by the deceased on the bus and if apart from being called as a cleaner is also discharging the duties as a Conductor, then the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated of the liability. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the award of the lower Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Tribunal for giving an opportunity to petitioners as to whether the deceased was discharging duties as that of a Conductor also though he may be called as a cleaner. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In case the lower Tribunal is found that the deceased also a Conductor and policy is covered the risk of the Conductor, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the interest, shall arise only from the date of order to be passed by the lower Tribunal after remand. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by remand. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:30.12.2011 INL