HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1314 of 2006 M.A.C.M.A. No.2304 of 2011 and M.A.C.M.A. No.2303 of 2011 Date: September 15, 2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1314 of 2006: Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chittoor. … Petitioner And 1. P. Gangi Reddy, minor by next friend guardian, father P. Anki Reddy & 2 others … Respondents * * * M.A.C.M.A. No.2304 of 2011: Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chittoor. … Petitioner And 1. B. Manjula, minor by next friend guardian, father B. Narayana Reddy & 2 others … Respondents * * * M.A.C.M.A. No.2303 of 2011: Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chittoor. … Petitioner And 1. B. Anjaneyulu, minor by next friend guardian, father B. Appaswamy & 2 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1314 of 2006 M.A.C.M.A. No.2304 of 2011 and M.A.C.M.A. No.2303 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent 2. 2. In view of the commonality of the question involved in the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeals, these are being disposed of by a common Judgment. 3. The facts in brief are as follows: The first respondent, who is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, filed claim petition alleging that he along with other students of Z.P. High School, Boorlapalle, were proceeding to attend a science exhibition at Madanapalle, arranged by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 U 181 belonging to the second respondent herein. While the said vehicle was insured with the petitioner/appellant insurance company, it suffered accident on account of alleged rash and negligent driving resulting in grievous injuries to the first respondent/claimants in all the three matters herein. Accordingly the claim petitions were filed which the insurance company resisted by claiming that it is not liable for any compensation, as the students were travelling in a goods vehicle which amounts to violation of conditions of the policy. It was also alleged that the insurance company in any case is not liable, as the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and that the insurance company is protected under Sections 149 and 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The owner, who is arrayed as second respondent in all the matters herein, contended that when the offending vehicle was kept at the fair price shop of Seetharamaiah, it was taken away by the teachers of the Z.P. High School without his permission and by engaging their own driver. They used the vehicle for taking the students for science exhibition. He accordingly disowned any liability for the accident. The State was also made a party to the claim petition which denied any involvement in the said accident and liability. 5. On recording evidence on the part of the claimants as well as contesting respondents, the Tribunal rejected the defence pleaded by the second respondent/owner and as a fact found that it is the second respondent/owner who had given the offending vehicle for use which resulted in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving. With regard to the extent of compensation, Tribunal has determined amounts of Rs.10,000/- towards simple injury; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses and awarded Rs.25,000/- in M.V.O.P. No.94 of 2001 which is subject matter of M.A.C.M.A (SR) No.33914 of 2005. Whereas, a sum of Rs.19,000/- was awarded in M.V.O.P. No.90 of 2001 which is subject matter of M.A.C.M.A (SR) No.33920 of2005 and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded in M.V.O.P. No.89 of 2001 which is subject matter of C.R.P. No.1314 of 2006. In all these matters, though the compensation awarded for the injuries is very megre, the insurance company has approached this Court by these miscellaneous appeals and revision petition aggrieved by the direction in the decree of the court below holding the insurance company as well as the owner liable for the compensation jointly and severally. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company/ appellant/petitioner herein submits that when the students were travelling in a goods vehicle, it is apparent violation of the conditions of the policy and the insurance company cannot be held liable. The said contention cannot be brushed aside, as there is an admitted violation of conditions of the policy and the goods vehicle admittedly was used for carrying the students to and fro for the science exhibition. I am therefore of the opinion that finding of the impugned decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding the insurance company liable deserves to be set aside and the liability has to be confined only to the owner/respondent 2 herein. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company also contended that the direction given in the decree for the insurance company to deposit the amount and later recover it from the owner is also onerous. 7. Though there is some semblance of justification in the said contention, on the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact that the students were injured in the accident for no fault on theirs, as they had hardly any choice with regard to mode of transportation provided by the school, it is not just and proper to interfere with the said part of the order on the principle of pay and recover which was also upheld by the Supreme Court in several decisions. 8. The Civil Revision Petition and the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are therefore allowed in part to the extent of setting aside the finding in the impugned judgment and decree holding the insurance company as liable for the decreed amount by setting aside that part, however, rest of the order of the Claims Tribunal shall stand confirmed. It is made clear that the insurance company shall deposit amounts decreed under respective claim petitions, but it shall be free to recover the amounts deposited in pursuance of the impugned awards by seeking refund by approaching the executing court without necessity of filing any fresh original proceedings against the owner. The amounts if any deposited by the insurance company in pursuance of the Award shall be given credit to. No costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: September 15, 2011. BSB