THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA C.M.A.No.944 of 2005 Date of Order: 02-08-2012 Between: United India Insurance Company Limted ..Appellant and 1. Karampudi Rukmini and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA C.M.A.No.944 of 2005 Oral Judgment: The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal impugning the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, dated 12-04- 2003 vide which compensation of Rs.45,000/- was awarded to the 1st respondent/claimant on account of injuries suffered by him. The facts of the case are that on 27-10-1999 at about 8 A.M. while the petitioner was travelling in the jeep AP 22 8898 from Hyderabad side towards Ibrahimpatnam and when the said jeep reached near Dayanand Reddy Garden at Bongulur gate, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep, the said jeep went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the DCM Van AP 9U 5748. As a result of which, the jeep turned turtle and the occupants including the petitioner/claimant sustained fracture and other injuries. The injured/claimant made a claim for Rs.1,25,000/- on account of injuries suffered by her. The 1st respondent—P.Venkataiah, who was the owner of the jeep AP 22 8898, remained ex-parte. A counter was filed on behalf of United Insurance Company Limited— 2nd respondent wherein it was admitted that jeep was comprehensively insured, but, however, taken a defence that jeep was not authorised to take the passengers for hire or reward. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal after going through the entire evidence held that accident was held due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal also taken into consideration the fact that FIR—Ex.A1 was registered against the driver of the jeep, who was also charge sheeted. The Insurance Company did not produce any evidence that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of DCM Van nor it was suggested to P.W.1 that the driver of the jeep did not have any valid driving license. Thus, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimant. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had contended that the insurance policy does not cover use of the vehicle insured for organized racing, reliability trial or speed testing for carriage of goods (other than samples) in connection with any trade or business. It was also contended that as the said jeep was carrying passengers, who include fare paid passengers and gratuitous passengers, and that there is a violation of condition of policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. However, perusal of the policy—Ex.B1 shows that jeep AP 22 8899 was comprehensively insured. In the policy itself it has been mentioned that all the actions of the vehicle, which is comprehensively insured, are covered as it was comprehensive policy. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) have issued guidelines in this regard that the occupants of the vehicle would be covered by the insurance policy, in case the vehicle is comprehensively insured by ‘B’ policy. In view of the latest guidelines issued by the IRDA, Insurance Company cannot say that the occupants of the vehicle were not covered by the insurance policy. It is, therefore, held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. I see no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 02-08-2012 Murthy