UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AHMADI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant-insurance company against the award, dated 20.3.2003 passed in OP No.226 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short 'the Tribunal').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : On 25.6.1997, Mohd. Mansoor Ali was going in a jeep bearing No.AP-11-C-7529 from Sadasivpet to Koheer and when reached near Kamkole Village, on N.H.No.9, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and thereby the jeep turned turtle, as a result of which, said Mohd. Mansoor Ali sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the next day. Respondents 1 to 6-claimants filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. THE appellant-insurer and the 7th respondent- owner contested the claim by filing counter- affidavits. By the award, dated 20.3.2003, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/ - to the claimants.

(3.) THERE is no dispute as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The dispute is with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant-insurer. RW1, the employee of the appellant-insurer, stated that the driver of the crime jeep was having driving licence of light motor vehicle and that the insurance of the crime vehicle does not cover the risk of the passengers travelling on hire basis. He further stated that as the deceased travelled on hire basis at the time of the accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal has clearly and categorically held that the appellant-insurer did not adduce any evidence to show that the jeep was used to transport the passengers on hire/reward basis and that mere alleging that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are violated is not sufficient without adducing any authentic proof. Further, as per Ex.B1-policy, an amount of Rs.225/- was paid towards premium apart from third party risk. As per the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company's case (supra), if a private vehicle is allowed to carry persons other than the owner or the driver, as per the conditions of registration, all such persons come within the expression 'third party'. Since the policy in this case covers the third party risk, the appellant-insurer is liable for payment of compensation as held by the Tribunal. Interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered.