HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.276 of 2008 Date: 01-7-2011 Between D.Srinivasa Reddy … Appellant/Respondent No.1 and Thangi Sayamma and 3 others … Respondents/Petitioners The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Vizag … Respondent/Respondent No.2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.276 of 2008 Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents 1 to 4-petitioners and respondent No.5-Insurance Company. 2. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant- respondent No.1. 3. Being aggrieved against the order and decree dated 27-01-2006 in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 4. The appellant herein is the owner of the offending vehicle in question. The tribunal below, while considering the evidence on record, fastened the liability against the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that he violated the policy conditions. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly urged that the appellant has paid Rs.30/- premium towards the coverage of the drivers/workman No.2 and therefore, exonerating the Insurance Company and fastening liability against the owner of the offending vehicle is erroneous and he stressed on Ex.B-1 policy. 6. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 7. Point:- As seen from the record, the factum of accident is not disputed. The only point for consideration is – whether there is any liability on behalf of the Insurance Company to indemnify the compensation in view of the recitals in Ex.B-1 policy. The 1st respondent i.e., the appellant herein filed written statement in the M.V.O.P., admitting that he is the owner of the vehicle but denied the rest of the allegations and contended that the age and income of the deceased are false and at any rate, as the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, he is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. The main contention of the Insurance Company before the tribunal is that the policy did not cover the risk of the kalasies. Admittedly, Ex.B-1 is the copy of the policy. As seen from the said document, an amount of Rs.50/- was paid towards the non-fare paying employee No.1 and Rs.30/- was paid towards drivers/workman No.2. Nowhere it is mentioned that the kalasies will come under coverage of the insurance policy. The tribunal below clearly observed that in a goods vehicle the liability as per policy is for the driver and non-fare paying passenger i.e., the owner of the goods. 9. As noted above, the nomenclature of kalasi is not noted in Ex.B-1 policy. R.W.1, owner of the offending vehicle, also did not adduce any evidence that the alleged kalasi is working under him. Moreover, he denied his relationship with the alleged kalasi. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that Ex.B-1 policy covers the risk of the kalasi. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal below exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability is quite justified and sustainable. 11. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the tribunal below and accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the tribunal below. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 01st July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.276 of 2008 01st July, 2011.