HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 3246 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 66 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.02.2002 at about 9.30 PM when the claimant and others attended coolie work and in that context they loaded sand in a tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 21/V-1038 and AP-21/V-1039 and for unloading the same at Dhone they were proceeding to Dhone and while so, the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and due to which, the Tractor and Trailer turned turtle and the claimant and others fell down and received grievous injuries. First respondent owner of the tractor and trailer remained ex parte and the second respondent- National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Anantapur filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver, therefore, the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation arrived at and the same shall be indemnified by the second respondent being the insurer of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 1,85,047/- as compensation despite the fact that there is no case made out by the claimants. He also submits that as per the policy, the vehicle is not meant for carrying of passengers and the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which itself is contrary to the principles of the policy. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 14.02.2002 at about 9.30 PM when the claimant and others attended coolie work and in that context they loaded sand in a tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 21/V-1038 and AP-21/V- 1039 and for unloading the same at Dhone they were proceeding to Dhone and at that time, the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and due to which, the Tractor and Trailer turned turtle and the claimant and others fell down and received grievous injuries. In order to apply the policy, the basic principle is to use the vehicle as goods vehicle and the passengers up to 6 in number could be carried on in the vehicle and there is no such restriction in carrying employees. It is evident that premium of Rs. 75/- was paid for employees apart from paying premiums in respect of other aspects. 7. Be that as it may, there was clear evidence to the effect that the claimants were employed as hamalies by the second respondent and they were travelling on the vehicle as such for unloading sand and therefore, the terms of the policy are applicable to them. When the policy terms can be applied for the benefit of the claimants, there is no need for interpretation of any provisions of the Act of 1939 or subsequent Act for those not covered by the relevant policy. Therefore, the Tribunal taking into consideration all the evidence available on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,85,047/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. In view of the above, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the reasonable compensation. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA