JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)), Nizamabad in OP No.142 of 2005, dated 05.04.2007. 2. Appellant is the petitioner. Respondents are the respondents in the O.P. 3.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. 3.2. Appellant-petitioner is the wife and respondent No.1 is the son of late Kyatham Chinna Reddy. 3.3. It is stated in the petition that on 15.01.2001 at about 11.45 A.M. Kyatham Chinna Reddy was driving Maruthi Zen car bearing No.AP 25G 3231 belonging to respondent No.1. When the vehicle reached Bandalingapur Shivar near Gandhi Hanuman Temple on National Highway Road No.16, K. Chinna Reddy lost control over the same and dashed the road side stone, sustained grievous head injury and he was shifted to M.J. Hospital, Armoor. While undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Deceased K. Chinna Reddy was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident and he was hale and healthy, earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an agriculturist and driver. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 is the insurer which was in force as on the date of accident and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, denied the contents of the petition. It is further stated that appellant-petitioner has filed petition before Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad vide W.C. No.34 of 2002 and the same was dismissed and the present O.P. is not maintainable. Deceased K. Chinna Reddy was driving the vehicle without having valid driving license and he is neither a third-party nor inmate of the vehicle as a passenger, he was driving the same in a private capacity. Respondent No.2 denied the age and income of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the O.P. 6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Respondent No.2 denied the age and income of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the O.P. 6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the LMV Maruthi Car Zen bearing No.AP-25-G-3231 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. Appellant is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Respondent No.2 did not lead any oral evidence but got marked Ex.B1-Policy. 8. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under no fault liability holding th at the respondent No.1 to pay the same. The claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed. The Tribunal has apportioned the above said amount and held that the appellant- petitioner is entitled for Rs.40,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum and respondent No.1 is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards his share as legal heir of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of awarding Rs.3 Lakhs. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 with that of Exs.A1 to A4 and prayed to enhance the compensation. Counsel to substantiate his contention relied on the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.M. Poonam and others , 1 (2015) 15 SCC 297 10. Notice got issued to respondent No.1 in the Appeal is served on 25.10.2008 but none appeared for him. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.P. against respondent No.2 and in support of his contention relied on the decision in the case of G. Nagarathna and Others Vs. G.Manjunatha & Another MFA No.2850 of 2017 dated 23.11.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangaluru, and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 12. Appellant counsel has filed Calculation Memo stating that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? 12. Appellant counsel has filed Calculation Memo stating that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. 13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? Point: 15. On close scrutiny of the grounds of Appeal, appellant- petitioner has not taken any defence in the grounds to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal against the respondent No.2 but only prayed to enhance the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.3 Lakhs by setting aside the award dated 05.04.2007 passed in OP No.142 of 2005. 16. The learned Tribunal has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 combinedly and assigned its reasons in para Nos.8, 9 and 10 which reads as under: “8. PW-1 has further stated that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the first respondent is none other than the son of the deceased Chinna Reddy. Though the petitioner has stated that the deceased was working as a driver of the first respondent on salary basis, no such evidence is adduced. Further her contention before the Commissioner under Workmen compensation Act, Nizamabad was not accepted holding that there is no relationship of workmen and employer in between the deceased and the first respondent and so holding dismissed her claim as per the orders under Ex.A4. 9. The offending vehicle said to have been insured with the second respondent under original of Ex.B1 policy and the same was in force from 06.04.2001 to 05.04.2002 covering the date of the accident i.e. 15.05.2001. Under Ex.B1 Policy, the risk of the driver, third party and damage to the offending vehicle is only covered. Admittedly the deceased Kyatham Chinna Reddy is not a third party As stated above, he is also not a paid driver of the first respondent. As stated above the first respondent is the son of the deceased. Thus the petitioner the first respondent and the deceased are belongs to one family. The risk of owner or his family members is not covered under Ex.B1 policy. As stated above the first respondent is the son of the deceased. Thus the petitioner the first respondent and the deceased are belongs to one family. The risk of owner or his family members is not covered under Ex.B1 policy. When admittedly the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the deceased, as per the judgment reported in 2006 (6) ALT-457 in the case of Swaroop and others v. A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director and others.., the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under Section 166 of M.V.Act. 10. As regards to the petitioner's entitlement for compensation under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with no fault liability, though the death of the deceased was due to his wrongful act, under clause 4 of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of 50,000/-. As per the evidence of PW.1 in the cross- examination, the first respondent is only son to them. Since the first respondent is being the owner of the offending vehicle, he has been impleaded as first respondent in this petition in the capacity as a owner of the offending vehicle. The first respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. In capacity as a legal heir of the deceased, the first respondent is also entitled to share in the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner. As stated by the petitioner, the first respondent is residing separately from them for the last 10 years. The petitioner has stated that after death of her husband, there is no earning family member in the family and she is subjected to starvation, considering this aspect, I feel it is just and reasonable that out of awarded compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- payable by the first respondent, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the first respondent being the legal heir of the deceased and balance amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner”. 17. 10,000/- is awarded to the first respondent being the legal heir of the deceased and balance amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner”. 17. Since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle - Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned - Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect of their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the insurance policy from the owner of the vehicle by putting the decree into execution - For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the Insurance Company - After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company - The Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle : See K.M.Poonam (supra). 18. Ex.A4 is the copy of the order in W.C.No.34 of 2002 F, Commission of Labour, Nizamabad, dated 25.06.2005. Ex.B1 is the Motor Claim Form submitted by opposite party No.1 (respondent No.1 herein). 18. Ex.A4 is the copy of the order in W.C.No.34 of 2002 F, Commission of Labour, Nizamabad, dated 25.06.2005. Ex.B1 is the Motor Claim Form submitted by opposite party No.1 (respondent No.1 herein). In the order it is mentioned that “in the Motor Claim Form marked as Ex.B1, the opposite party No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) stated that there is no paid driver involved in the accident and that his father was driving the vehicle and dashed to a tree resulting in his death. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no master and servant relationship between opposite party No.1 and the deceased person and that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 19. The learned Tribunal has observed the same in the impugned order while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in para No.6. 20.1. In G. Nagaratna2, the High Court of Karnataka observed that “admittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased – S.N.Ravisha himself and he being self tort-feasor the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation for his death, otherwise it would amount to a person who committed breach getting the compensation for his own wrongs”. 20.2. The supreme Court has upheld the above said judgment in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22411 of 2024 dated 02.07.2025 (G.Nagarathna and Others). 20.3. The case facts set out in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 21. The Tribunal has considered the O.P. under Section 140(4) of Motor Vehicles Act and awarded compensation under no fall liability. 22. This Court is of the view that appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and the judgment cited by the appellant counsel in K.M. Poonam (supra), is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the principles laid down therein are not applicable to the case facts. 23. There are no merits in the Appeal, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 24. MACMA is dismissed without costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed.