MOTTE GANGA DEVI Vs. P.PEDDA SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants who are no other than wife, minor daughter and father of deceased by name Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 25 years as per the Ex.A.3 P.M. report, with the claim as traveling for unloading on the tractor propelled with trailer bearing No.AP21 U 1267 and 1268 belongs to the claim petiton -1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 policy though for additional premium covering risk of 5+1 hamalies collected Rs.150.00 paid, filed claim under sections 140 and 166 of the M.V.Act and Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 for Rs.3,00,000.00 in O.P.No.200 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum III Addl. District Judge, Anantapur (for short, Tribunal) and the tribunal by its award dtd. 20/3/2007 while exonerating the insurer awarded compensation as prayed for with interest at 7.5% p.a. only against the 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle.

(2.) It is impugning the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the tribunal gravely erred in appreciating the factum of the policy covered the risk of the deceased hamalies traveling for unloading the load of slabs on the trailer and the policy since covered risk of 6 hamalies from the additional premium paid and the tribunal should have considered that the deceased thereby not an unauthorized passenger as contended by the insurer, thereby sought for fixing joint liability against the insurer also by modifying the award of the tribunal allowing the appeal.

(3.) Whereas, it is the contention of the counsel for the insurer (from the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal proof of service even sent to same address in receiving the appeal is a deemed service) that the award of the tribunal is just in exonerating the insurer from the settled position of law and there is no proof that the deceased was hamali and the tractor is meant for single seating capacity of the driver and not to allow any person and there is no permit and in the absence of which any person traveled is only unauthorized passenger and the tribunal when rightly came to the conclusion supported by reasons referring to the law, for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere. Hence, to dismiss the appeal.