IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4821 OF 2006 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., ....PETITIONER AND Devarakonda Anjaneyulu and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4821 OF 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 19.04.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.302 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) – cum – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddapah, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition, filed under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1/claimant in a road accident, was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.8,000/-. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: On 12.08.2003, one Soma Vasantha Rao engaged a mini lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 2997 belonging to respondent No.1 for transportation of Green Mirchi bags from Villages nearby Pulivendula Town, and the claimant and other coolies for loading and unloading of said Mirchi bags. When the offending vehicle reached near Rayalapuram Village, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash or negligent manner with high speed and failed to control the same, due to which the offending vehicle turned turtle on the left side of the road with Mirchi load and the owner of the vehicle and coolies sustained injuries. Hence, the petition. 4. Respondent No.2, National Insurance Company Limited, filed written statement stating that the petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the claimant is put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition including that the mini lorry of respondent No.1 involved in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry; that the claimant received injuries; the amount spent by the claimant for medicines; earnings of the claimant; petition claim etc. It is stated that he enquiry reveals that the driver of the lorry does not possess valid driving licence; and that lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 4915 belongs to respondent No.1 was insured with respondent No.2 but not the lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 2997; that so, the amount claimed by the claimant is also excessive. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Respondent No.3 filed written statement stating that the lorry of respondent No.1 was not financed with respondent No.3 and so, it is not a necessary party to the proceedings; and that a perusal of the record discloses that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and so, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the same. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the petition against respondent No.3. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the claimant received injuries due to negligent act of driver of crime vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked; on behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was got marked and on behalf of respondent No.3, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.8,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved by the order of fixing liability on it, the Insurance Company preferred the present revision. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature; that the Doctor, who treated the claimant, was not examined to show the nature of disability sustained by the claimant; that the policy does not cover the risk of Coolies and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that Ex.A2 would clearly go to show that the claimant sustained simple injuries; that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate; that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation; and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The claimant was travelling in the mini lorry as a Coolie at the time of the accident. Driver of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and as a result, the vehicle turned turtle on the left side of the road. It is not in dispute that the accident was caused due to negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The only point to be decided in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant or not. 12. Ex.B1 is the Insurance policy, which was marked through R.W.1. R.W.1 has categorically stated that the policy does not cover the risk of the passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, as no premium was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle for the Coolies. It was suggested to R.W.1 that the basic premium covers the risk of driver, cleaner, owner of the goods and six Coolies. But, the same was denied. The requirement of policies and limits of liability available to the Insurance Company are mentioned specifically in Section 147 of the Act. As per the statute, if there is prohibition of carrying passengers in any goods vehicle. To cover any contractual liability, by paying additional premium by the owner of the vehicle to cover, the risk of the coolies. Admittedly, no additional premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle to cover risk of the coolies. Ex.B1 is the Insurance policy, which covers the risk of third party. The Coolies come under unauthorized persons, as no additional premium has been paid to cover their risk. Hence, the question of liability of the Insurance Company in the facts of the case is clearly over looked by the Tribunal because the liability of the Insurance Company is a contractual liability. The contractual liability of the Insurance Company in this case covers the risk of the owner of the vehicle and the third party, but not Coolies traveling for loading and unloading of goods. As there is no additional premium paid by the owner of the vehicle to cover the risk of Coolies travelling in the goods vehicle, the question of fixing liability to pay compensation on the insurance company does not arise. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed dismissing the claim against the appellant/Insurance Company. However, granting of compensation to the claimant against the owner of the vehicle is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J APRIL 01, 2011 YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4821 OF 2006 April 01, 2011