HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2263 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company – the Oriental Insurance Company Limited assailing the judgment in O.P. No.269 of 2001 dated 25-02-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Khammam, whereby the learned trial Judge awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under no fault liability. 2. The impugned O.P. was filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for shot “the MV Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the death of the deceased Parsika Padmanabha Rao, who was 20 years old. 3. According to the claimants’ case, the deceased was 20 years old and on 09-02-1999 at about 7-10 AM, he boarded the tipper bearing No.AP31-V-4092 along with the other passengers as paid passenger at Bodhapuram Village to go to Charla Village to attend the School; when the tipper reached the outskirts of Vijayapri Colony, on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver, it dashed against a culvert, as a result the deceased fell down from the tipper and the tipper ran over him killing him on the spot. A case in Crime No.10 of 1999 was registered for the accident and investigated into. 4. The appellant filed its counter denying the claim of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following point: Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled to any compensation, if so, against whom and at what amount ? 6. The Tribunal, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- holding that all the respondents are liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally. 7. Heard Sri T. Ramulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company, and Sri M. Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapalti, learned counsel appearing for the claimants - respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein and perused the material on record. 8. Now, learned counsel for the appellant, insurance company, contends that admittedly the deceased was a paid passenger in a goods vehicle, as such, there is no liability on the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that what was claimed was only compensation under Section 140 of the Act under no fault liability. 10. Even if it is a case of any valid liability, the question of liability of the appellant would arise only when the insurance policy covers the accident. When, admittedly, the deceased was a paid passenger in a goods vehicle, there is no question of his being covered under the policy. 11. It is reported by the learned counsel for the claimants that an O.P. filed under Section 166 of the MV Act for compensation is pending. However, it is not clear as to what is the stage/result of that O.P. 12. However, as far as this O.P. is concerned, as the material on record revealed that the deceased was a paid passenger in a goods vehicle, the appellant, insurance company, is not liable for payment of compensation, as such, the appeal is to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed holding that the appellant is not liable for payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further, it is made clear that this judgment shall not have any impact on the O.P. filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, as it is decided without any evidence on record. A question may arise as to whether the deceased need not be treated as a passenger in that vehicle, as immediately before he was killed he was ran over by that vehicle, maybe he fell down from that vehicle. That question if raised, needs some evidence to decide. In case, ultimately it is held in the O.P. under Section 166 of the MV Act that the claimants are entitled to compensation, they shall be entitled to the compensation awarded in that O.P. and the compensation awarded in this O.P. shall not be deducted from the compensation to be awarded in that O.P. The amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was already said to have been withdrawn by the claimants in this case, shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 15, 2010. PV