HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1874 OF 2001 Dated: 11.03.2010 BETWEEN: Kuruva Munemma and another .. Appellants And V.Srinivasa Rao and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1874 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order, dated 27.09.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.194 of 1998. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 3. The appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Obulappa filed the claim petition before the Tribunal below under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal passed an award granting compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, but exonerated the second respondent –insurance company from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and fastened the liability on the first respondent-owner of the vehicle. Assailing the said finding, the appellants preferred this appeal and their grievance is that the Tribunal ought to have held that the second respondent-insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 4. Admittedly, the deceased met with an accident on 21.08.1997 while he and some others were traveling in the oil tanker bearing No.AP 16 W 4579 and they were proceeding on the said vehicle to Kurnool. The learned Tribunal though held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, but arrived at the conclusion that the deceased and some others were traveling as unauthorized passengers in the said vehicle which is a goods vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation to the appellants-claimants. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that it was borne out from the material on record that the appellants were traveling as unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle. Ex.B.1 policy does not cover such risk. There is also no denial of the fact that under the Motor Vehicles Act traveling of passengers in a goods vehicle is prohibited. The finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal, therefore, is based on evidence and strictly in accordance with law, and it requires no interference in this appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 11.03.2010 Kvrm