CHINTAPALLI RAMULU Vs. CHEEKATI SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the of compensation awarded to them and being aggrieved by the Tribunal not making the third respondent liable for payment of the compensation awarded to them the claimants in a motor accidents claim preferred this appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that Suramma (the deceased), the wife of 1st appellant (who died during the pendency of the proceeding in the Tribunal) and mother of appellants 2 to 4, while traveling in a lorry (as a fare paying passenger), belonging to the 2nd respondent, and insured with 3rd respondent, died in an accident that took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal having awarded Rs.94,400/- as compensation to the appellants exonerated the 3rd respondent from liability on the ground that fare paying passengers are not covered by Ex.B-1 policy.

(3.) Ex.B-1, Copy of the insurance policy, shows that it covers the risk for four coolies. Even according to the case of the appellants, the deceased was traveling as a fare paying passenger. In view of Rule 252 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, no person unconnected with the goods being transported in a goods vehicle can travel in the goods vehicle and nobody can be carried for hire or reward in a goods vehicle without a valid permit. It is not the case of either the appellants or the 2nd respondent that the goods vehicle in which the deceased was traveling had a permit to take passengers on hire or reward. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants cannot be found fault with and so, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal that 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants.