THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 1559, 2540 OF 2009 and CRP Nos. 99, 101, 102, 127 and 134 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the orders dated 20.08.2008 in M.V.O.P.Nos.385, 388, 387, 389, 386, 390 and 234 of 2006 and order dated 29.12.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.236 of 2006 and orders dated 31.03.2008 in M.V.O.P.Nos. 331, 333, 329 and 332 of 2006, wherein the claims of the respective claimants were allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.53,000/-, Rs.41,000/-, Rs.53,000/-, Rs.12,000/-, Rs.53,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,69,500/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.90,000/-, in M.V.O.P.Nos. 385, 388, 387, 389, 386, 390, 234 of 331, 333, 329, 332 and 236 of 2006, respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records. 3. As all the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. According to the claimants, on 26.10.2005 they were travelling in a jeep bearing No.AIM-568 from Potluru to Vellaturu and on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, the accident occurred and the claimants sustained injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Vinukonda. A case in Crime No.54 of 2005 was registered by Savalyapuram Police against the driver of the jeep. Some of the inmates of the jeep also succumbed to injuries. 5. The owner of the jeep and the Insurance Company filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. After enquiry, the Tribunal allowed the claim and passed awards as stated above with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal further directed that the insurer shall deposit the amount with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer filed the present appeals. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that as per the policy, the risk of only five passengers is covered, whereas more than 30 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that at any rate the insurer is liable to satisfy only five claimants in descending order, starting from the highest of the awards and distribute the total amount among all the claimants proportionately. 8. In a decision reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd., V. Anjana Shyam and others [1], this Court held thus: “We are of the view that the insurance company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom the insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of other passengers involved in the accident in a case of overloading.” It was further held that “Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards”. 9. The above decision was followed by this Court in National Insurance Co.LTd.,Guntur V. M.China Samba and others[2], wherein it was held thus: “Therefore, in all cases where in a given accident the claimants are more than the number, which is covered under the policy, the Tribunal shall have to assess the compensation in individual cases separately and arrive at the quantum to be paid in each case. The highest among the award shall be taken into consideration and from that in the descending order the claims of persons to the extent it is covered by the policy shall be reckoned and added and the lumpsum amount to be paid shall be arrived at. That lump sum amount shall have to be distributed amongst all the claimants pro-rata depending upon the compensation awarded in each case by the Tribunal. The amount that is fallen short than the actual amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle separately. The Tribunal should pass appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that are passed in individual cases. In that view, justice can be done to all the claimants who are the victims of an unforeseen accident and who suffered the consequences thereof”. 10. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions and following the same, the highest of the five awards passed by the Tribunal has to be taken into consideration and the total amount thereof, would have to be distributed on pro- rata basis among all the claimants herein. The five highest awards are a sum of Rs.1,69,500/-, Rs.53,000/-, Rs.53,000/-, Rs.53,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and total thereof comes to Rs.3,78,500/-. When the same is distributed proportionately in all 12 cases, it comes to Rs.4,50,500/-. Insofar as the appellant/insurance company is concerned, their liability to pay compensation will have to be restricted by applying the principles laid down in the above decisions as follows: MACMA 79 OF 2009 O.P.NO. 385 OF 2006 Rs. 44,529.00 MACMA 80 OF 2009 O.P.NO.388 OF 2006 Rs. 34,447.00 MACMA 82 OF 2009 O.P.NO.387 OF 2006 Rs. 44,529.00 MACMA 83 OF 2009 O.P.NO.389 OF 2006 Rs. 10,082.00 MACMA 84 OF 2009 O.P.NO.386 OF 2006 Rs. 44,529.00 MACMA 1559 OF 2009 O.P.No.390 OF 2006 Rs. 42,009.00 MACMA 2540 OF 2009 O.P.NO.234 OF 2006 Rs.1,42,410.00 CRP 101 OF 2006 O.P.NO.333 OF 2006 Rs. 1,680.00 CRP 102 OF 2006 O.P.NO.329 OF 2006 Rs. 1,680.00 CRP 127 OF 2006 O.P.NO.332 OF 2006 Rs. 3,361.00 CRP 99 OF 2009 O.P.NO.331 OF 2006 Rs. 1,680.00 CRP 134 OF 2006 O.P.NO.236 OF 2006 Rs. 7,562.00 11. It is stated that there has been violation of the conditions of the policy by overloading the vehicle. The appellant/insurer is, therefore, at liberty to recover the above said amounts from the owner of the vehicle in terms of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanjapan and others[3]. The claimants are at liberty to recover the balance amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are modified accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J AUGUST 27, 2010. YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FIRDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 1559, 2540 OF 2009 and CRP Nos. 99, 101, 102,127 and 134 of 2009 New India Assurance Company Limited Rep.by its Divisional Manager,Srikakulam .... APPELLANT AND Puttapu Lalitha Kumari and others …RESPONDENTS [1] 2007 ACJ 2129 [2] 2008(2) ALD 455 [3] 2004 ACJ 727