IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.2928 of 1999 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Manager. … Petitioner And Nama Rojamma and five others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No. 2928 of 1999 ORDER: - This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability imposed on it by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda under the impugned judgment and decree in O.P.No.239 of 1995, dated 05.10.1998. The aforesaid claim petition was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 herein claiming compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh on account of accidental death of Nama Peda Lingaiah @ Talekantigudem Lingaiah who was the husband of 1st respondent herein, father of 2nd to 4th respondents and son of 5th respondent. The accident occurred while the deceased was travelling as a coolie in the auto van bearing No.AP- 16-U-5560 with a load of poultry birds and when it dashed against the stationed R.T.C. Bus, as a result the driver of the van sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to multiple injuries. The appellant/insurance company filed a counter denying its liability on the ground that even on verification of the records, they confirmed that the auto van was not insured with them and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation. The claimants examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 on their behalf and Ex.B1, Insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the oral and documentary evidence and as per its finding, the first issue was held in favour of the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and hence the insurance company is liable, in view of Ex.B1-insurance policy, which shows that an extra premium was collected with respect to persons in charge of loading and unloading as well. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.600/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, and keeping in view the age of the deceased, it arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.79,200/-. To the said sum, a conventional amount towards funeral and transportation was added, apart from Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and an aggregate amount of Rs.87,700/- was granted towards total compensation. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contends that the policy Ex.B1 clearly shows that an extra premium of Rs.50/- was collected and the said premium covers the risk of driver and/or cleaner and/or conductor or person employed for loading and unloading, but not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner and therefore he submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The above said clause which appears to be part of I.M.T. 17 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant before me. However, it was not part of the policy exhibited before the Tribunal below. Ex.B1-insurance policy was alone marked before the Tribunal which shows the details of the premium paid, coverage and the details of the vehicle etc.. Ex.B1 itself shows that Rs.50/- was collected towards extra premium to cover the persons employed in connection with operation and/or maintaining and/or unloading of motor vehicle. In the absence of any document before the Tribunal and even now before this Court, I am not in a position to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company. It is also to be remembered that the insurance company’s specific stand in the counter before the Tribunal was that there is no insurance policy and there is no coverage and only when it was confronted with Ex.B1, it has come up with the present theory in this appeal for the first time. It cannot be disputed that extra premium was also paid for the persons employed in connection with loading and unloading and the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a coolie, which is not in controversy. The liability of the insurance company, therefore, was rightly fixed and I do not see any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal below. Therefore, I see no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J) 13.11.2009. Lmv