HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2419 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the order in MATOP No.410 of 1997 dated 25-01- 1989 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Khammam, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal questioning its liability for payment of compensation. 2. Appellant is insurer of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AAG – 515 involved in the accident, claimants are kith and kin of the deceased, driver of the tractor-trailer and its owner are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the MATOP before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the MATOP before the Tribunal. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 01-12-1987 at 3-00 PM, while the deceased, who was a labourer and sitting on the trailer bearing No.ADB – 8323 of the tractor bearing No.AAG – 515 died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer. According to the claimants, the contesting respondents herein, deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.20/- to 25/- per day, as such, they filed the MATOP claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver of the tractor-trailer and its owner, remained ex parte. Respondent No.3, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying its liability for payment of compensation and that the compensation claimed is exorbitant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of R-1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.85,000/- towards general and special damages? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? 4. To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved of the same, questioning its liability for payment of compensation, insurance company preferred this appeal. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, insurance company, is that labourers are not covered under the policy issued to the tractor-trailer, as such, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation and that it has filed CMP No.15953 of 2002 for receiving copy of the insurance policy of the tractor-trailer as additional evidence by this Court and considering the same, the matter may be decided with regard to liability of the insurance company. 10. Per contra, contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that during the course of trial, insurance company has not filed either copy or original of the insurance policy, as such, now the same cannot be considered. 11. The petition in CMP No.15953 of 2002 filed by the insurance company to receive the copy of the insurance policy as additional evidence by this Court is dismissed today i.e., on 16-11- 2010. Thus, there is no insurance policy of the tractor-trailer on record and the position remains same as it was when the matter was pending before the Tribunal i.e., no insurance policy is on record to show that labourers on the tractor-trailer are not covered by the insurance policy and for that reason the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased. However, it is open for the insurance company to take appropriate steps that are available under law against the owner of the tractor- trailer. Thus, I see no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 16, 2010. PV