HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1560 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.206 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, on 05.01.2000 while the deceased was proceeding to Koratla from Kutni village of Chinthakunta Mandal, along with other passengers in the jeep bearing No.MH 02 B 2454 being driven by its driver and when they reached Bhavani Old Rice Mill, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the private bus bearing No.AP 14 4741, which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased Rajendar received multiple injuries and died. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. 3. The 1st respondent is driver of the jeep, 2nd respondent is owner of the jeep, the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company and the 4th respondent is original owner in whose name the registration certificate stands. Respondents Nos.1 and 4 remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter that the incident did not happen in the manner as pleaded by the petitioners and the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petitioner, putting the petitioners to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, cause of death of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the driver was not having valid licence. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Questioning the compensation and the liability, the Insurance Company has challenged the award. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is violation of the conditions of the policy as the jeep was being run on hire and the deceased was a fair paid passenger. The application of the multiplier and earning capacity are not proper and there is no proof of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and therefore, the appeal is to be dismissed. 5. Evidently, the fact that the deceased was travelling in the jeep and died in the motor accident is not in dispute. The police have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet Ex.A.5. The evidence of PW.2 also shows the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and when the evidence of RW.1 was not clear, the lower Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence and came to the conclusion about the nature of the incident. The lower Tribunal has also taken into consideration the earning capacity of the deceased as a Carpenter and the petitioners are the parents and though the petitioners are entitled for a higher claim, it has confined to only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Even by applying the present law and taking into consideration the amount of the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. In this case, the main contention of the appellant is that the deceased was a fair paid passenger in a jeep and therefore, there is no liability to pay the compensation. In fact, the plea does not show that the policy is only an act policy and that does not comprehensive policy. The lower Tribunal relied on a decision reported in Amrit Lal Sood and another Vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others (1998 ACJ 531). It is also not in dispute that the Insurance Regulatory authority has given a Circular that in case of comprehensive policy even in case of gratuitous passengers in a private car, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Further-more since the policy being a comprehensive one, the liability fixed on the appellant cannot be said to be against the law. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be order as to no costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:20.09.2011 INL