JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the Award dated 06.01.2005 in O.P.No.195 of 2003 passed by the MACT (Additional District Court), Hindupur, (for short the Tribunal), the respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the instant MACMA. The respondents in the appeal are claimants before the Tribunal. 2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The claimants are the wife and children of deceased M.Lingoji Rao of Hindupur. Their case is that the deceased was a business man dealing in purchasing and selling of sheep and goats by transporting them from Hindupur to Bangalore. On 03.04.2003, the deceased loaded about 70 sheep and goats in his canter van bearing No. AP 02 V 2019 at Hindupur at about 3.00 AM, to go to Bangalore and the deceased traveled in the van as owner of the goods. On the way when the van reached Muthur village near Doddaballapur on Hindupur-Bangalore road at about 4.40 am, the driver of the vehicle drove the same at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed an electrical poll on the left side of the road and thereby the vehicle turned turtle and the said Lingoji Rao suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Some goats and sheep also died. Due to his death, the claimants who are his dependents became destitutes. It was pleaded that the accident was occurred due to fault of the driver. On these pleas, the claimants filed O.P. No.195 of 2003 against the United India Insurance Company Limited, who is insurer of the vehicle and claimed Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation under different heads. b) The respondent/ Insurance Company contested the O.P. mainly on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the policy covers the risk of the third parties and not the risk of owner himself. Since the deceased was the owner of the vehicle, his risk will not be covered under the terms of the policy. Secondly, the respondent contended that the crime vehicle was driven by the person holding no valid driving licence at the time of accident. As per FIR the vehicle was driven by one Dadapeer, who did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. However, the police in collusion with the claimants changed the name of driver as Dadapeer @ Fakruddin. There is no such person called Dadapeer @ Fakruddin. As per FIR the vehicle was driven by one Dadapeer, who did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. However, the police in collusion with the claimants changed the name of driver as Dadapeer @ Fakruddin. There is no such person called Dadapeer @ Fakruddin. In fact, one Dadapeer, who was the cleaner of the lorry drove the vehicle at the time of accident. The police records were manipulated to suit the convenience of the claimants to have wrongful gain from the insurance company. Hence for violation of the terms of the policy, the insurance company is not liable. c) During trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked. For respondent RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. d) The award would show that issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 touching the identity and liability of the driver are concerned, the tribunal relying upon Ex.A8 certified copy of judgment in C.C. No.353 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Doddaballapur held that the police after investigation charge sheeted the driver S.Fakruddin @ Dadapeer being responsible for the accident and he was tried by the learned Magistrate Court and therefore the driver involved was one Dadapeer @ Fakruddin. The tribunal further held that the accident was occurred due to his fault. e) Then the liability of Insurance Company is concerned, the tribunal relying upon the decision reported in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, Vijayawada Vs. Doredla Satyanarayana held that the deceased traveled in the capacity of owner of the goods and therefore, his liability is covered under the terms of the policy. f) Then issue No.2, relating to quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.3,46,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till the date of realization under different heads as follows: Loss of dependency Rs.3,36,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- _____________ Total Rs.3,46,000/- _____________ Hence, the appeal by the Insurance Company. 3) Heard arguments of Smt.A.Malathi, learned counsel for appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited. Though the respondents/claimants are represented by the counsel, no arguments were advanced. 10,000/- _____________ Total Rs.3,46,000/- _____________ Hence, the appeal by the Insurance Company. 3) Heard arguments of Smt.A.Malathi, learned counsel for appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited. Though the respondents/claimants are represented by the counsel, no arguments were advanced. 4) Learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company assailed the award mainly on the ground that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and not a third party as such the policy will not cover the risk of the owner. It is argued that he cannot claim the coverage of his risk as owner of the goods. It is further argued that though the tribunal relied upon the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited (1 supra) and held that the risk of the deceased will cover in the capacity of owner of the goods, the said decision was set aside by the Supreme Court in the appeal carried out by the Insurance Company in Civil Appeal Nos.8598 and 8599 of 1997 dated 08.12.1998, as such the risk of the deceased will not be covered under the terms of policy. He relied upon the following decisions on the point that the risk of owner of the vehicle will not be covered without payment of extra premium i.e., i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Rajni Devi , ii) Dhanraj V. New India Assurance Company Limited and iii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Sudhakaran K.V . Learned counsel, thus, prayed to allow the appeal. 5). In the light of the above arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: Whether the award passed by the tribunal is legally and factually sustainable? 6) POINT: The accident involvement of canter van bearing No. AP 02 V 2019 and death of deceased are admitted facts. It is the case of the claimants that the vehicle belongs to deceased and at the time of accident he was carrying goats and sheep from Hindupur to Bangalore as part of his business. These facts are not disputed. The tribunal awarded compensation on the premise that though the deceased was owner of the vehicle still he traveled in the capacity of owner of the goods i.e., live stock and met with accident and died and since the policy issued covers the risk of the owner of the goods, it invariably covers the risk of the deceased in such capacity and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability. As already stated, the tribunal relied upon Doredla Satyanarayanas case (1 supra) in this context. However, learned counsel for appellant produced a copy of order in Civil Appeal Nos.8598 and 8599 of 1997, wherein the Supreme Court reversed the judgment in Doredla Satyanarayanas case (1 supra) in the appeal carried out by the Insurance Company and clarified that the liability of Insurance Company, qua driver is only covered to the extent of the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and no more. In this regard, the Honble Apex Court followed its judgment in Smt.Mallawwa etc. V. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (Civil Appeal No.3659 of 1993). It may be noted that in Smt.Mallawwas case (5 supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation to legal heirs on the death of passengers in goods carriers. Basing on the said decision, the judgment in Doredla Satyanarayanas case (1 supra) was reversed by Honble Apex Court. Hence the respondents/ claimants now cannot take aid of Doredla Satyanarayanas case. So in order to claim compensation, the risk of the deceased must be covered under the terms of the policy and for this purpose he must have paid extra premium to cover his personal risk. In the other decisions cited by learned counsel for appellant it was so held. 7) In Rajni Devis case (2 surpa), the Apex Court held thus: 6. It is now a well settled principle of law that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. In Dhanrajs case (3 supra), the Honble Supreme Court held thus: 10. In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs.4989 paid under the heading Own damage is for covering liability towards personal injury. Under the heading Own damage, the words premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. Under the heading Own damage, the words premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case there is no such insurance. (Emphasis supplied) In Sudhakaran K.Vs case (4 supra) the Honble Supreme Court held thus: 19. The law which emerges from the said decisions, is : (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/ her risk; (ii) the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle. 8). Thus, in all the above decisions, the basic philosophy is that the risk of the owner or pillion rider of the vehicle is not automatically covered unless specifically contracted and premium was paid. It may be noted that in all those cases, the vehicles appear to be the passenger vehicles and owner therein traveled as either rider or pillion rider. In that context, it was held that owner is one of the contracting parties and not a third party and therefore, his risk is not covered unless specifically contracted. The above decisions have not dealt with the aspect of owner of the goods vehicle driving his own vehicle or travelling in the capacity of owner of the goods and involving in accident and about coverage of his risk. As already stated supra, this aspect was directly an issue in Doredla Satyanarayanas case decided by the Division Bench of this High Court. However, the said judgment was reversed by Honble Apex Court basing on Smt.Mallawwa etcs case. In these circumstances, the present claimants, in my opinion can claim compensation, if only the deceased had specifically contracted to get coverage to his personal risk as otherwise his Lrs will not be entitled to compensation. However, the said judgment was reversed by Honble Apex Court basing on Smt.Mallawwa etcs case. In these circumstances, the present claimants, in my opinion can claim compensation, if only the deceased had specifically contracted to get coverage to his personal risk as otherwise his Lrs will not be entitled to compensation. In this context, a perusal of Ex.B1 policy would show that the deceased paid premium to give coverage to, compulsory personal accident (PA) to owner and driver. Thus, it is clear that the deceased being the owner of the vehicle, while obtaining Ex.B1 policy paid extra premium of Rs.100/- to give compulsory personal accident coverage for himself and the driver to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. It appears due to his sheep business, the deceased was required to frequently travel between Hindupur and Bangalore along with his live stock on his vehicle and so, he must have thought it fit to obtain coverage of policy for his personal risk also. In view of the policy covering the risk of the deceased to an extent of Rs.2 lakhs, the claimants will be entitled to compensation to that extent only. 9) In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed and ordered as follows: i) Compensation is reduced from Rs.3,46,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of O.P till the date of realization. ii) The Appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against it. iii) No costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, shall stand closed. 1) 1997 (5) ALD 32 2) 2008 (4) ALD 34 (SC) 3) (2004) 8 SCC 553 4) 2008 (8) Scale 402 = II (2008) ACC 849 (SC) 5) AIR 1999 SC 589