THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 20.10.2005, passed in O.P.No.525 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBB Case-cum- Additional Family Judge-cum- XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal), whereunder a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation for the death of one B.Kamalamma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, the present appeal is filed. The appellants-claimants filed the claim petition alleging that on 27.05.2003 at about 11.30 pm., the deceased was travelling in a car bearing No.AP 12C 2781 from Hyderabad to Zaheerabad and when the car reached Arur Village on National Highway No.9 of Medak District, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 1149, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Appellant No.1 is the husband and appellants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. They filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the said car, respectively, stating that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to them. Before the Tribunal, as the owner of the car called absent, he was set ex parte. The second respondent-insurer filed the counter disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Further, in the additional counter-affidavit, it is stated that the said car was insured under liability policy or Act policy, and, as per the terms of the said policy, it covers risk of the driver, but not the occupants of the insured vehicle and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under no fault liability to the appellants-claimants fastening the joint and several liability on respondents 1 and 2 herein. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that under the premise that the said offending car is insured under Act policy, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd V. Ahmadi Begum and others[1], wherein the judgment of this Court rendered in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Secunderabad V. Palamoni Suresh ( 2010(3) ALD 229) was followed and held that if a private vehicle is allowed to carry persons other than the owner or driver, as per the conditions of registration, all such persons come within the expression “third party”. Since the policy in the case covers the third party risk, the appellant is liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further contended that even otherwise, the insurer of the said offending car can pay the compensation to the claimants and later recover the same from the owner of the said vehicle. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd V.Challa Bharathamma[2], wherein the insurance company was directed to deposit the amount and recover the same from the insured by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Baljit Kaur[3], wherein it is held that the term ‘any person’ in view of 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of goods or his authorized representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise, no premium has been paid for them by the owner; the insurance company is directed to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant and recover the amount from the owner in execution proceedings. He further contended that that when the driver/owner of the car is aware of the fact that the risk of the inmates/occupants of the car is not covered by the insurance policy under which it is covered, he ought not to have permitted the passengers to travel in it. Nevertheless, when the permitted the deceased to travel in it and unfortunately, the car met with an accident, the insurer of the car has to pay the compensation to the claimants and later, it can as well recover the same from the owner of the said car. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-insurance Company contended that the offending car in the instant case is covered under ‘Act policy’, which means the liability of the insurance company is very limited i.e., it covers only the driver of the car and there is no premium paid with regard to the inmates/occupants of the car, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the inmates/occupants of the car in case of any accident. To substantiate her contention, she relied upon the judgment of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kondakotla Saroja[4]. I have given by deep consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the entire relevant material placed before this Court very scrupulously. It is an admitted fact that the offending car is covered by ‘Act policy’, in which event, the liability of the insurance company is limited i.e., it is liable to pay compensation only as regards the owner of the vehicle and the liability cannot be fastened on it to pay the compensation to the inmates/occupants of the car. Apparently, there is wide distinction between the ‘comprehensive policy’ and ‘Act policy’ as regards the fastening of the liability on the insurance company. For the insurance of the vehicle under ‘Act policy’, the owner of the vehicle does not pay any premium as regards the risk of the inmates/passengers/occupants of the vehicle and as such, the inmates/occupants of the car in the instant case cannot be said to be covered under the policy. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not relevant to be applied to the present case as the facts and circumstances of the instant case differs from the facts of the said cases cited supra. Hence, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the judgments referred supra by this Court and the Supreme Court are not applicable to the present case. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that it is only the driver of the offending vehicle who is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and not the insurance company, and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 17th March 2011 DR [1] 2011 (2) ALD 14 [2] 2004 ACJ 2094 [3] 2004 ACJ 428 [4] 2008(5) ALT 246 (D.B.)