1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the Award and Decree dated 04.05.2011 in O.P.No.1238/2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge) (FTC) at Kothagudem (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from record are that the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants, who are the family members of Devalla Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 19.03.2007. As per the claim petition, on 19.03.2007 the deceased along with others, who were working as coolies on Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No. AP 27 F 3081/3082 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), was proceeding to Vinayakapuram to attend coolie work in the land of respondent No.1 and when they were returning after having darshan of Muthyalamma Temple at 2.30 PM near Rachurupalli Village, the respondent No.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. As a result, the engine and front left tyre of the offending vehicle burst. Due to which the deceased sustained head injury and died while shifting him to the hospital. A case in Crime No.20/2007 was registered for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is the specific case of the claimants that due to the death of the deceased, they lost source of income, love and affection, conjugal happiness of claimant No.1. Hence, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 was set exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition including the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was further contended that the deceased was unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle at the time of accident.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

5. Based on the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. During the course of trial, the claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum under various heads. Aggrieved thereby the Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal.

7. Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Rama Lingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/claimants and perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal.

8. Admittedly, the claimants have not preferred any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. There is also no dispute regarding the manner of the accident as the learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs.A1 and A2, namely, the FIR and charge sheet, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The said finding has not been shown to suffer from any perversity or illegality and, therefore, does not call for interference in the present appeal.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 primarily contended that since there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and the accident occurred solely on the fault of the driver, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager v. Haridas and others (2020 Supreme (Chh) 494), wherein it was held as under:

               “In view of the finding that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent – driver and since the 3rd respondent – Akash Tiwari was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant time, it shall be liability of the said respondents to satisfy the Award amount, as ordered by the Tribunal.”

10. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that, since the claimants themselves pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the owner violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer stands absolved of its liability, is wholly misconceived. Rash and negligent driving constitutes the very basis for maintaining a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such negligence cannot, by itself, be treated as a breach of the policy conditions. An insurer can avoid its liability only by establishing one or more of the statutory defences contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the absence of proof of any such statutory defence, the Insurance Company cannot evade its liability merely because the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. Accordingly, negligent driving alone cannot exonerate the Insurance Company. There must be a legally recognized breach of the policy or a statutory defence for the insurer to avoid liability.

11. It is further contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 is that the deceased, who was working under the respondent No.1 as coolie, was not covered under the insurance policy as no extra premium was paid. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and others (2007 INSC 359), wherein it was observed that employee is not a third party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance upon the decision in Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others (2004 ACJ 1881) wherein the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that the insurance of trailer is not a mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act and if the prime mover/motor vehicle/tractor is insured and the negligence of the driver of the said motor vehicle is established, the compensation is payable by the owner of the tractor and insurer irrespective of the fact whether the victim suffers injury with the tractor or with the trailer. Further reliance was placed upon the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Koduru Bhagyamma and others (2008 (2) ALT 764 (D.B.)), wherein High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh reaffirmed the decision in Gunti Devaiah’s case (supra).

12. It is indisputable that an employee is not automatically afforded third-party coverage under every policy of insurance. The extent of coverage has to be determined with reference to the statutory provisions and, where applicable, the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the question in the present case has to be examined with reference to the specific terms of Ex.B1- insurance policy. A perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that apart from the third-party premium of Rs.785/- and trailer premium of Rs.375/-, an additional premium of Rs.25/- was collected towards the coverage of the risk of one employee. Thus, the policy itself contemplated coverage of the risk of an employee. The specific case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and was travelling in the offending tractor-trailer in connection with such work. The Insurance Company, though disputing its liability, has not adduced any evidence to establish that the deceased did not fall within the category of employee contemplated under the policy or that the coverage evidenced by the additional premium of Rs.25/- was subject to any exclusion applicable to the deceased. In such circumstances, the mere reliance upon the decision in Meena Variyal's case (supra) would not advance the case of the appellant/Insurance Company. In that case, the question of liability was considered with reference to the statutory requirement and the terms of the policy applicable therein. On the other hand, in the instant case, the policy itself discloses collection of an additional premium for covering the risk of one employee. Therefore, the liability of the appellant has to be determined with reference to the coverage specifically incorporated in Ex.B1. Having accepted the additional premium towards such coverage, the appellant cannot, in the absence of proof to the contrary, contend that no employee was covered under the policy. Though six laborers were traveling on the offending vehicle, respondent No. 2 failed to produce evidence, either before the learned Tribunal or this Court, to establish that any of the remaining injured laborers had filed compensation claims under Ex.B1 and thereby the claimant is barred from seeking compensation covering the risk under Ex.B1 on the ground that other laborers had already exhausted that coverage.

13. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. It is true that the claimants pleaded that the deceased and others were travelling in the tractor-trailer while proceeding to attend coolie work. However, the evidence on record, as observed by the learned Tribunal, establishes that the deceased was working as a coolie under respondent No.1. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to establish that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger having no connection with the employment of respondent No.1. Consequently, the contention that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger and that his risk was not covered under the policy cannot be accepted. As per the crime record adduced on behalf of the claimants, it is very much evident that the deceased along with others were engaged to work as coolies on the tractor.

14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant-Insurance Company failed to establish any valid ground either under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or under the terms of Ex.B1 to absolve it of the liability fastened by the learned Tribunal. The finding of the learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, therefore, does not warrant interference. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

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

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.