1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 05.12.2005 (hereinafter called as ‘Impugned award’) passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.O.P.No.523 of 2002 (hereinafter called as ‘Claim petition’).

2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 20T 2059 & AP 20T 2060 (hereinafter called as ‘crime vehicle’). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are wife and parents of one Nallamilli Prabhakar @ Prabhakar Rao (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’),are the claimants before the Tribunal.The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

               a. On 28.02.2002 at about 04.00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on crime vehicle as loading and unloading coolie from sand ramp to Eluru, when they reached near K.M.Stone 4/43 on Eluru to Janampet near Chodimella, the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulted the crime vehicle fell into the road side ditch, turned turtle and death of the deceased, who fell under the sand load.

               b. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent No.2/owner filed written statement and pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle is having valid driving license; that the crime vehicle is having valid documents to ply on the road, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded thatthe deceased was travelling the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger, thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants; that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in causing the incident; that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. During enquiry before the Tribunal,on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1and 2wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.6wereexhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, its official was examined as R.W.1, but no documentary evidence was adduced.

7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and that the Ex.A.5 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident.Accordingly, a sum of ₹2,06,604/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer of the crime vehicle has preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition.

9. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer. None appeared for the respondents.

10. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that, by the date of the accident, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a fare-paying passenger and not as a coolie. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the present appeal.

11. In view of the above contention, the point that arises for determination is:Whether the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a coolie or as a fare-paying passenger on the date of the accident?

12. It is not in dispute regarding the death of the deceased in the accident, the involvement of the offending vehicle, the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in causing the accident, and the fact that neither the claimants nor the owner of the offending vehicle preferred any appeal against the findings recorded by the Tribunal. There is also no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants.It is also not in controversy that Ex.A.5 policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle was valid and in force as on the date of the accident. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident; however, the only dispute raised is with regard to the capacity in which he was travelling in the said vehicle.

13. As per Ex.A.1-FIR, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was carrying a load of sand. Further, Ex.A.5-charge sheet clearly shows that the deceased, along with another person, was travelling in the offending vehicle as a coolie. Except for the bare contention raised by the insurer, no substantial material was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a fare-paying passenger.Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle covered the risk of the deceased, who was travelling in the vehicle as a loading and unloading coolie, and he cannot be termed an unauthorized passenger. Even according to the grounds raised by the appellant, Ex.A.5 policy covers the risk of the driver, coolie, or any person connected with the maintenance of the vehicle. It is also not the case of the insurer that any other claim was made in respect of the same accident.

14. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant/insurer to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. As stated supra, it is also not the case of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation payable to the claimants. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurer is liable to be dismissed. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

15. In result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.