IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.521 of 2006 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant AND B. Balaiah & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.521 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.525 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trail of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, at Hyderabad, dated 20.10.2005. 2. B. Kamalamma, claimed to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer, was travelling in car No. AP 12C 2781 on 27.05.2003 and at about 11.30 p.m. near Arur Village, the car, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against a stationary lorry. Kamalamma died due to injuries on the spot and, hence, her husband, children and mother sought for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the car. 3. While the owner of the car remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants or a valid driving licence for the car driver or a subsisting insurance policy or the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The insurer also claimed that as per the terms of the insurance policy, the risk of the occupants of the insured vehicle is not covered and, hence, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During enquiry, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and B-1 to B-3. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving of the car. The Tribunal also concluded that notwithstanding the claims of R.W.1 about the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurer will be liable to pay compensation in the event of proof of rashness and negligence of the vehicle driver, but as the claimants failed and as they also applied under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner and insurer are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded the said amount with interest at 6% per annum against both the respondents jointly and severally with proportionate costs. 6. The insurer challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 showing the insurance policy as an act policy obtained for private purposes only were not properly appreciated and even under no fault liability, compensation cannot be fastened to the insurer. The insurer, therefore, desired the award to be negatived. 7. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the claimants or the owner of the car before this Court. 8. The judgment of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2006, dated 17.03.2011, is brought to notice by Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant, wherein on an appeal filed by the claimants against the same award, the learned Judge, with reference to the precedents cited, concluded that when the offending car is covered by act policy, the liability of the insurer is limited to pay compensation only as regards the owner of the vehicle and not as regards the inmates/occupants of the car. The distinction between a comprehensive policy and act policy was noted and when the owner did not pay any premium as regards the risk of the inmates/passengers/occupants, they cannot be said to be covered by the policy. Therefore, the learned Judge concluded that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation and consequently dismissed the appeal. 9. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that the judgment has become final and, therefore, the same binds this Court in this appeal also and the non-liability of the insurer to pay any compensation has to be consequently upheld and the appeal has to succeed. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed without costs and O.P.No.525 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, is dismissed without costs against the insurer. If the insurer has made any deposit of any portion of the compensation awarded by the impugned award and the same was withdrawn by the claimants in terms of the orders of this Court, dated 10.03.2006, in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.992 of 2006, the insurer/appellant is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the car/the 6th respondent herein without the necessity of taking recourse to any other legal proceedings. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 11th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.521 of 2006 Date: 11th October, 2011 KL