THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1718 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/1st respondent against the order dated 16.12.2003 in O.P.No.621 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in granting compensation of Rs.45,000/- in so far as it relates to the non-liability of the insurance company. According to the claim of the petitioner, he was the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADP 818 and on 23.06.1997, when he was going with the above lorry belonged to the appellant, with a valid driving licence due to the failure of the brakes, the lorry turned turtle and he received multiple injuries. The lower Tribunal accepted the claim of the claimant with regard to the receipt of injuries but specifically found that the claimant has failed to prove that the incident was due to the failure of the brakes. Having held so, it was exonerated the liability of the insurance company on the ground that the policy did not cover the risk of the petitioner, as he failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to the failure of the brakes. There is no finding of the lower Tribunal as to how the incident has happened, if it is not a case of failure of the brakes. In fact, the claimant was the driver of the lorry owned by the appellant and the valid insurance of the vehicle is not disputed. The incident is also not disputed. Even, if it is not a case of failure of brakes, it is a case when the claimant was in employment of the appellant and the lorry has turned turtle and he received the injuries. Therefore, on that count, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability because the risk of the driver of the vehicle is covered under the policy. In this case, the claimant will be entitled to approach the Workmen’s Compensation Tribunal, whereunder he is squarely covered for the recovery of the compensation for the injuries. He is also got an option to approach the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal since the employment of the claimant is not disputed and as the incident has happened during the course of employment and use of the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. Therefore, keeping in view of the special provisions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 17-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1718 of 2011 DATE: 17-08-2011 MR