IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.496 of 2009 Between: The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Nizamabad ..Appellant AND N. Shyamala and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.700 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nizamabad. The factual background for the appeal is that on 12-05-1995 at about 9.15 P.M., Sudershan Goud and others were coming in a car No.AP 25 B 2277 and near Jangampally, RTC bus No. AP 9 Z 7064 was left unattended in the middle of the road after it met with an accident. The driver of the car hit the bus rashly and negligently and Sudershan Goud and Yellamma died on the spot. Sudershan Goud, aged 38 years, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an agriculturist and Manager of Thirumala Chitramandir, Nizamabad contributing his entire earnings to the wife, two children and mother, who are claimants, who sued the APSRTC, the owner of the bus, and the owner and insurer of the car for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest and costs. The claim was resisted by APSRTC denying the accident and denying any liability as the car driver himself was rash and negligent. The owner of the car sued as 3rd respondent contended that the car was sold to the deceased Sudershan Goud himself even in December 1994. The insurer of the car contended that it was not informed about the accident and the excessive claim is untenable due to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 to B.3 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly, concluding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and therefore, the APSRTC is absolved from liability. The Tribunal also concluded that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,16,500/- in total restricted to Rs.4,00,000/- and the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the insurer about the absence of its liability as the insurance policy was not cancelled and appeared to be continuing in force. The Tribunal noted the car to have not been transferred in favour of the deceased by the time of accident. But, even otherwise, the insurer is liable even in respect of the death of the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs against the 4th respondent and the petition against 1st and 3rd respondents is dismissed and the Tribunal gave further directions about the disbursement of the compensation. The insurer challenged the said award herein contending that the “Act policy” does not cover the own risk of the owner and hence, the insurer could not have been directed to compensate the claimants, who are not third parties and who are not covered by the policy of insurance. The third party policy does not cover any gratuitous passengers’ liability, who are not carried for hire and reward and in the light of Ex.B.2-insurance policy, the insurer should have been absolved from the liability. Heard Smt. A. Malathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents- claimants. It has been brought to notice that C.M.A.No.237 of 2003 and the cross objections therein and batch decided by this Court on 25-07-2007 relate to the same accident and the same was also reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. N. Rukkamma and others[1]. The learned Judge concluded that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not contemplate coverage of any risk of fatal injury or death to the owner of the vehicle unless such risk is covered by the policy. The learned Judge also observed that only the conditions of the policy would and should govern both the parties so far as their respective obligations are concerned and referring to the conclusion of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending car in which the victims were travelling alone was negligent resulting in the accident, the learned Judge opined that in respect of the insurance policy in question, the inmates of the car including the owner are not covered by the conditions of the policy and consequently, there is no contractual liability on the insurance company to pay any compensation. Therefore, the claimants herein also have to fail when the decision of the learned Judge is stated to have become final without any further challenge. Therefore, in the light of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. N. Rukkamma and others (stated supra), the appeal is allowed without costs and the award dated 31-01-2002 in O.P.No.700 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad is set aside and the said O.P.No.700 of 1995 is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-10-2010 Ksn [1] 2008 (1) ALT 42