THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.849 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed M.V.O.P.No.356 of 1998 before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) against respondent No.3, owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 4388 and its insurer, the appellant herein, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2 boarded the vehicle along with their children on 09.02.1998 and by that time, it was filled with gravel. When the vehicle is said to have turned turtle at Kuchipudi Crest Gates, on account of rash driving, and their son by name Mallikarjuna Rao, age 9 years, died on the spot. Crime No.20 of 1998 is said to have been registered under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. in relation to the said accident. Respondent No.3 herein remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant alone. It denied the liability by raising several objections. Through its order, dated 03.01.2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation and apportioned the same between respondent Nos.1 and 2. It directed the appellant to pay the compensation and permitted it to recover the same from respondent No.3. The said order is challenged in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased were not in dispute. To prove his case, respondent No.1 deposed as P.W.1 and stated that himself and his family members, including the deceased, have boarded the vehicle as passengers. Exs.A1 to A4, First Information Report, Inquest Report, Postmortem Certificate and Charge Sheet, were filed. On behalf of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1, Insurance Policy was filed. The Tribunal recorded a specific finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. It has also determined the compensation at Rs.60,000/-, taking into account, the age of the deceased and the dependency of respondent Nos.1 and 2. No interference is warranted with those two findings. In fact, the appellant has not seriously challenged the same. The principal objection of the appellant is about its being made liable to pay the compensation. Its plea is that once the deceased was found to be a passenger in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. The Tribunal kept in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and issued directions requiring the appellant to pay the amount and recover the same from respondent No.3. The amount awarded is almost equivalent to the one of ‘no fault liability’. The appellant is not able to point out any serious defect in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.11.2011. kdl