THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.10 OF 2003 O R D E R: This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.09.2002 passed in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,16,342/- which is rounded off to Rs.2,16,500/- with interest at 9%p.a. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased one Patan Khaleelullah Khan @ Khaleel, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.6.2001. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. According to them, on 18.6.2001, the deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP04-B-8442, as a Cleaner thereof. When the vehicle reached Bothpur village on the National High Way on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, the Tata Sumo dashed against the vehicle on its rear side resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased, to which, he succumbed, while undergoing treatment at Kadapa. It is further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month besides daily bata of Rs.50/-. The Tata Sumo vehicle belongs to the third respondent herein and was insured with the appellant/insurer. 4. The owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation interalia on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered by the policy. 5. During the enquiry, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the insurer. 6. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,16,342/-, which is rounded off to Rs.2,16,500/-. Accordingly, award was passed for the said amount with interest at 9% p.a. fastening the joint liability on the insured and the insurer. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the Tata Sumo is not seriously disputed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the policy Ex.B.1 does not cover the risk of the deceased who is said to be a Cleaner. It is not disputed that along with the deceased another person, who was travelling in the vehicle also died on account of the injury sustained in the accident and in O.P.No.797 of 2001 filed by his wife compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- towards award on 29.4.2002 against the insured and the insurer. RW.1 the Assistant in Divisional Office, Kadapa Branch of the insurer deposed that the owner has not paid any premium towards the risk of the Cleaner and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation. It is not disputed that the owner of the vehicle has paid personal accident benefit premium for ten persons including the driver. As per the FIR, eight persons were travelling in the Jeep at the time of the accident including the deceased and excluding the driver. As seen from the impugned award, the claim filed on account of the death of the driver was allowed, and the amount was also deposited. Ex.A.1 shows that it was a comprehensive policy. It shows that the premium was paid for ten persons for the personal accident benefit. Even assuming for a moment that the deceased was not a Cleaner, still he is one of the persons, who was travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident and the premium having been paid in respect of ten persons covering their risk and there being only two deaths out of eight persons travelling in the Jeep, the risk in respect of the deceased also gets covered by the policy. The contention of the appellant that because the deceased is not shown to be a Cleaner, his risk is not covered by the policy as no separate premium is paid for a Cleaner, is untenable. The impugned award fastening the joint liability on the appellant/insurer on the ground that the risk of the deceased is also covered by the policy under which premium was collected for ten persons, does not call for any interference. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.2,16,500/- is not seriously disputed. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award is not liable to be interfered with. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 16th November, 2009 PNV