Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vallapu Gangamma And Ors. vs The New India Assurance Company, Rep. By ... on 19 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT353
JUDGMENT Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. Appellants are the dependents of the three deceased - V. Guravaiah, Venkataswamy and Narayana. They preferred claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Cuddapah. It was their case before the Tribunal that the three deceased along with other coolies were travelling in the lorry belonging to the first respondent and that the lorry met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver and the three deceased died and the others received injuries as a result thereof. Separate claims were preferred by the persons who received the injuries. In these three appeals, we are concerned with the claims in O.P.Nos. 49, 51 and 53/87.
2. The Tribunal, accepting the evidence of the direct witness (P.W.2) found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and awarded compensation to the claimants against the first respondent only and dismissal against the 2nd respondent, viz., the Insurance Company. These appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claims against the Insurance Company.
3. The only point for consideration in these appeals is whether the Insurance company - the respondent herein is liable to pay the compensation amount.
4. P.W.2 who travelled in the lorry belonging to the first respondent along with the deceased and other coolies, stated that no certificate was obtained from the concerned authority showing that they worked under the Corporation for one month from the date of the accident. The driver of the lorry examined as R.W.I deposed that the deceased along with other coolies forcibly entered into the lorry asking him to take them to 'gandi' and threatened to beat him if he did not do so. There is no reason for me to disbelieve the evidence of R.W.I. If his evidence is accepted, the deceased and the other persons cannot be said to be passengers but they are trespassers. Therefore, the Insurance company cannot be made liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal is, therefore, right in not making the Insurance company liable. Hence I see no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
5. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed. No costs.