HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1645, 1652 OF 2010 AND 3774, 3775 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals arise out of the common accident. The appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the awards in O.P.No.244, 245, 252, 246 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Anantapur, questioning the liability. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the lower Tribunal. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, on 13.07.1995 when the petitioners were travelling in the bus bearing No.AP 02 T 2248 and reached near Urabanda village, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the bus turned turtle and the petitioners sustained multiple injuries. It is said that there are about 32 passengers, who travelled in the bus, sustained injuries. R.1 remained ex parte in all the O.Ps., and the appellant herein, filed common counter contending that two persons died. It is contended by the Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein that there is a violation of the conditions of the policy of insurance and the policy was taken as stage carrier, but it was of hire and there was also overcrowding and consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record did not accept the contention of the Insurance Company and granted the compensation as shown below: Sl.No. O.P.No. Name of the Deceased/Injured Occupation of deceased Salary of deceased (Per Month) Rs. Age of deceased Q u a n t u m of compensation (Rs.) 01. 244 of 2002 Boya Linganna Agriculturist 1500/- -- 20,000/- 01. 245 of 2002 Vasantha Kumari-deceased Minor girl -- 6 60,000/- 02. 246 of 2002 Bheema Lingappa @ Bheemalinga Coolie 1500/- -- 21,000/- 02. 252 of 2002 Ramanjaneyulu Coolie 1500/- -- 35,000/- Aggrieved by the said awards, the present appeals are filed. 4. The point that is common in all the appeals, which arises for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation? 5. POINT: The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the bus was over- loaded and there were about 30 persons on the top of the bus and consequently, the liability of the Insurance Company is not there as there is violation of the conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that the policy covers the risk of 48 persons travelling in the bus. That being so, the total claims against the appellant are only ‘9’ and there are no other claims. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the contention that the vehicle was overloaded and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. 6. So far as the contention of the appellant that the policy was taken as a stage carrier and that the vehicle was used for hire is concerned, evidence of RW.1 is sought to be relied upon. Evidently, the fact that the vehicle was intended for use of transport of the passengers is not in dispute. It is to be noted that the bus, which is said to have been involved in the accident, was used for taking the marriage party as passengers in the bus. The hire charges are quite different from paying the charges for use of the bus, in which passengers were taken as a group of marriage party. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that the owner of the bus has given it on hire as contended by the Insurance Company. Hire and payment of the charges for travelling have got very little distinction. Except the interested evidence of RW.1, which is not supported by any other material, there is no proof of hire. In view of the incident having been occurred in 1995 and awards being passed in 2005 and taking into consideration the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal below, I think it is not a matter, where-under a question of fact or law is involved and this Court can interfere. However, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amounts from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above circumstances, all the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:30.12.2011 INL