HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A. No. 280 of 2003 O R D E R: The Insurance Company is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the award dated 19-09-2000 passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad in OP No. 127 of 1998. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- to the dependants of the deceased, who died in a motor accident involving jeep bearing No. AP 1C 2626. 2. Since no permission was taken under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurer before the lower Tribunal, this appeal is not maintainable in so far as quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal to the claimants, is concerned. 3. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is violation of terms of insurance policy covered by Ex.A5 in as much as the insured vehicle is a private vehicle carrying passengers. There is no dispute that the insurance company settled claims of driver and cleaner of the accident vehicle before Lokadalat for injuries sustained by them. Even though, it is contended that risk of the driver is covered under the policy, no risk of the cleaner is covered by the policy as no separate and specific premium was paid covering cleaner’s risk. Further, the award in question was passed in pursuance of the common order passed by the lower Tribunal in OP Nos. 127 of 1998, 109 of 1998, 116 of 1998 and 117 of 1998. The insurer had picked and chosen to file this appeal questioning the award passed in OP No. 127 of 1998 only. No appeal is filed by the Insurer questioning the awards passed in OP Nos. 109 of 1998, 116 of 1998 and 117 of 1998. Even though, the insurer is prohibited from filing appeal against the Award in OP No. 117 of 1998 as the compensation awarded therein was less than Rs.10,000/-, no reason is put forward as to why the insurer did not question the awards by filing these appeals in the other two claims. Insurer cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. The insurance company like a private litigant cannot take two inconsistent and unreasonable stands. Two awards passed by lokadalat relating to driver and cleaner and three more awards passed by the lower Tribunal became final. However, even on merits, there is no evidence to show that the deceased who died in the accident vehicle as fare paid passenger. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the death of the deceased, who is a third party. Hence there are no merits in this appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 09-12-2010