IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH (11TH) DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA Nos.283, 305 & 306 of 2010 MA CMA No.283 of 2010: Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anantapur … Appellant And: Rayalacheruvu Jakker Basha & another … Respondents MA CMA No.305 of 2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anantapur … Appellant And: Begari Vara Prasad & another … Respondents MA CMA No.306 of 2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anantapur … Appellant And: Cheekati Rajasekhar @ Rajasekhar Reddy & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA Nos.283, 305 & 306 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: CMA No.283 of 2010 is directed against the common order dated 11.11.2009 in OP No.544 of 2007 on the file of the MACT cum V Additional District Judge, Anantapur, wherein, the claim of the first respondent herein was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.58,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. ii) CMA No.305 of 2010 is also directed against the same common order in OP No.548 of 2007 on the file of the same Tribunal, wherein, the claim of the first respondent was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. iii) CMA No.306 of 2010 is also directed against the same common order in OP No.546 of 2007 on the file of the same tribunal, wherein, the claim of the first respondent was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.42,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent-claimant in all the appeals are heard. Perused the record. As the three appeals arise out of the common order dated 11.11.2009 and involved common questions of fact and law, they are heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The case of the claimants is that on 28.12.2006, they along with other coolies, were engaged for loading and unloading of brick material by one Uma Godown, Anantapur and after loading the material in the crime vehicle, they were returning to the go-down and near Lolur cross, the vehicle dashed against the bullock tyre cart due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and the claimants sustained injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Anantapur. A case in Cr.No.111 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the goods van, belonging to the 2nd respondent herein. 4. The owner of the goods van and the appellant-insurer, filed counters, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. The insurer further contended that the claimants were travelling in the goods van, unauthorisedly at the time of the accident and the risk is not covered by the policy. During enquiry, common evidence was recorded and the three claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and the doctor was examined as PW.4 and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods van by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in these appeals. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.58,000/- in OP No.544 of 2007, Rs.42,000/- in OP No.546 of 2007 and Rs.13,000/- in OP No.548 of 2007, respectively, as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeals. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the claimants are unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle and their risk is not covered by the policy Ex.B.1 and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants seeks to justify the award on the ground that the claimants were engaged as coolies for the purpose of loading and unloading. 7. Even according to the claimants, they were engaged as coolies for the purpose of loading and unloading of brick material. Admittedly, the vehicle involved is a goods carriage vehicle but not a passenger vehicle. The policy Ex.B.1 shows that apart from the basic liability for third party and premium for trailer, Rs.50/- was collected as premium towards workmen compensation for two employees. Ex.B.1 also shows that it was a goods carriage vehicle. In Ex.B.4 certified copy of policy, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.219/- towards loading on T.P. premium was paid. RW.1- Adminsitrative Officer of the appellant-insurer deposed that the vehicle is a ‘goods carrying commercial private vehicle’ and the policy does not cover the risk of any passengers and the claimants were travelling as unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle and the risk is not covered by the policy. In the counter, the appellant- insurer has specifically pleaded that the claimants are only passengers travelling in the goods vehicle unauthorisedly and the risk is not covered by the policy. RW.1 further deposed that the policy covers only two employees i.e., driver and the cleaner, but not that of coolies. It is also in his evidence that the policy does not cover the risk of one or two coolies and if the premium is received to cover the risk of coolies that too as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle and the same will be specifically mentioned in the policy. Ex.B.1 policy does not show that the risk of any coolies or hamalies is covered by payment of additional premium in that regard. As per Ex.B.1 policy, risk of only two employees towards workmen compensation is covered by collecting premium of Rs.50/-. Admittedly, the claimants are not the employees of the owner of the vehicle, employed to work on the vehicle, but they were only the coolies engaged for the day’s work. The claimants would not therefore answer the description of ‘employee’ or ‘workman’ and the premium collected for covering the risk of the driver and cleaner, who are employees on the vehicle, cannot be treated as workman, covering the risk of coolies. The reference to ‘loading on T.P. premium’ in the policy in a sum of Rs.219/- appears to have been misinterpreted by the Tribunal as covering the risk of coolies engaged for the work of loading and unloading. The said amount of Rs.219/- mentioned as ‘ loading on T.P. Premium’ is in respect of addition to the third party premium to be collected based on the previous claims, if any, and the same has nothing to do with loading and unloading work done by the coolies engaged for the said purpose. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant-insurer has clearly established that the risk of claimants, who even according to them are only coolies, is not covered by the policy and therefore, the appellant-insurer cannot be fastened with any liability for payment of compensation. 8. In view of the said findings, it is considered unnecessary to go into the question as to whether or not the driver of the vehicle was having effective and valid driving licence and whether or not there has been any violation of any terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle. The impugned order, insofar as it relates to the fastening of joint and several liability on the appellant-insurer, is therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside to that extent. 9. Having regard to the fact that the claimants are poor agricultural labourers, it is considered that the amount if any already withdrawn by them may not be recovered from them. The appellant- insurer is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. The claimants are at liberty to recover the award amount or balance amount, as the case may be, from the owner of the vehicle. 10. In the result, three appeals are allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.10.2011 bss