HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1330 of 2008, M.A.C.M.A.No.1477 of 2008, C.R.P.No.2640 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008 Date: 08-7-2011 M.A.C.M.A.No.1330 of 2008: Between National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-II, Opp. Regency House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Divisional Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Tupakula Uma Maheswari … Respondent/Petitioner Md.Nazeer … Respondent/Respondent No.1 M.A.C.M.A.No.1477 of 2008: Between National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-II, at Nalgonda, Rep. by its Divisional Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Tupakula Uma Maheswari … Respondent/Petitioner Md.Nazeer … Respondent/Respondent No.1 C.R.P.No.2640 of 2008: Between National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-II, Opp. Regency House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Divisional Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Tupakula Uma Maheswari … Respondent/Petitioner Md.Nazeer … Respondent/Respondent No.1 M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008: Between National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-II, Opp. Regency House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Divisional Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Barpati Yellamma and another … Respondents/Petitioners Md.Nazeer … Respondent/Respondent No.1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1330 of 2008, M.A.C.M.A.No.1477 of 2008, C.R.P.No.2640 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008 Common Judgment: Since all these appeals and the revision arise out of one and the same accident, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Being aggrieved by the orders and decrees dated 11-01-2008 in O.P.Nos.853, 842, 841 and 854 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1330 and 1477 of 2008, C.R.P.No.2640 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008, respectively, are filed by the appellant-Insurance Company; 3. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.Nos.853, 842, 841 and 854 of 2005 before the tribunal below. The 1st respondent-claimant in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1330 and 1477 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.2640 of 2008 filed O.P.Nos.853, 842 and 841 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of her father, mother and elder sister, respectively, in an accident that occurred on 20-9-2005; whereas the respondents 1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008 filed O.P.No.854 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of their daughter in the same accident. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,38,500/-, Rs.1,84,500/-, Rs.4,500/- and Rs.1,54,500/-, respectively, under all heads. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeals and the civil revision petition are filed by the Insurance Company. 4. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that there was violation of the policy conditions as the offending vehicle was used other than the private purposes, for which it was insured. 5. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the orders of the tribunal below are sustainable ? 6. Point:- The factum of accident is not disputed. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, R.W.1 K.Ravindranath, Legal Assistant in the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, was examined and he filed Ex.B-2 attested copy of Insurance Policy and Ex.B-3 attested copy of terms and conditions of the policy. 7. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the jeep was insured for personal use, but, whereas at the time of accident, it was used for carrying passengers and therefore, the owner of the jeep has violated the policy conditions and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has also placed reliance before the tribunal below on a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Jaya Kumar v. Rajamma (2006 ACJ 172), wherein it was held that when the policy excludes coverage in respect of the persons travelling for hire or reward and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation if there is any violation of policy conditions. 9. As per the evidence of P.W.2, he was travelling in the jeep and he gave a complaint to the police. In the chief-examination, he stated that himself and his sister Barpati Akkamma @ Sireesha (deceased in M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008) boarded the jeep at Achampet to go to Amrabad. During cross-examination, he admitted that the jeep was a private jeep and it was for personal use of the 1st respondent-owner and not for stage carrier. Therefore, in view of the admission of P.W.2 in the chief-examination itself, it can be said that the deceased are midway passengers. Admittedly, the offending vehicle covers the Act policy. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company now draws the attention of this Court to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kamareddy, Nizamabad Dt. v. Kondakotla Saroja[1], wherein it is observed that as per policy conditions, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation if the persons travelling in the vehicle were unauthorized. 11. In the present case on hand, admittedly all the four deceased persons are unauthorized passengers even as per the evidence before the tribunal below. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal below fastening the liability against the Insurance Company is set aside. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the 1st respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Insurance Company has deposited certain amounts before the tribunal below and it may be permitted to recover the same. 13. However, having considered the request of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the Insurance Company can work out their remedies for recovery of the said amounts if they are otherwise eligible. 14. In the result, all the three civil miscellaneous appeals and the civil revision petition are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 08th July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1330 of 2008, M.A.C.M.A.No.1477 of 2008, C.R.P.No.2640 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1338 of 2008 (Common Judgment) 08th July, 2011. [1] 2008 (5) ALT 246 (D.B.)