GOSALA RAMADEVI Vs. P SIVANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, who are the wife, parents, grand parents and son of Gosala Ramana (the deceased) who died in a motor vehicle accident filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the jeep which was being driven by the deceased himself at the time of the accident on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month as salary. First respondent chose to remain ex parte. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia contending that inasmuch as the owner violated the terms of the policy issued by it by permitting 13 people to be carried in the Jeep when its capacity is only '10', it is not liable to pay compensation and that the appellants have to prove tha t they are entitled to the compensation claimed. In support of their case, appellants examined the second appellant as P.W. 1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the second respondent. The Tribunal held that inasmuch as the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation and dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount?

(3.) The fact that the deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident is not denied or disputed. Ex.A-1, First Information Report issued in connection with the accident, shows that it was registered on a report given by the person who took the Jeep on hire. It shows that the deceased drove the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, and dashed it against an electrical pole resulting in injuries to some of the persons travelling in the Jeep and also to the deceased and when the deceased was shifted to the government hospital, he was pronounced dead. P.W. 1 in fact is not a witness to the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant by strongly relying on New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. D. Satyanarayana ; Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; Sitabai v. Ishak Hussain; A. jagadeeswara Rao v. Gopala Krishna Transport, Visakhapatnam and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel contended that the appellants are entitled to the compensation claimed in spite of the fact that the deceased was rash and negligent while driving the Jeep at the time of accident, because the insurance covers the risk of the driver also.