THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No.1631 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 03.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.1747 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in the O.P is the appellant herein. The claimant-1st respondent herein filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.03.2004 involving van bearing No.AP9 U 8892. As against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,96,000/-. Assailing the same this appeal by the insurance company. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. Perused the order of the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute as to the nature of the accident and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident. The claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and he spoken as to the manner in which the accident occurred. Ex.A-1 is the First Information Report and Ex.A-2 is the Charge Sheet. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W-1, P.W.2 and also Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3-wound certificate, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van in question, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference. 5. Coming to the question of grant of compensation, the Tribunal considering the Exs.A-4-medical certificate, Ex.A-6- disability certificate, Ex.A-5-medical prescriptions, Ex.A-8-bunch of medical bills, granted a compensation of Rs.1,96,000/-. It has come in the evidence of P.W-2-Medical Officer that the claimant underwent surgery called ‘interlocking nail and concellous screw fixation’ and there was fracture right femur and fracture of right lateral condlye treated. It has also come in the evidence that the claimant suffered stiffness of right hip and knee joint and the patient cannot sit or squat, stand or walk, like before and that the implants have to be removed by another surgery. Considering this evidence and also the medical receipts and bills issued by NIIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper. 6. However, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant was a non-fare paid passenger i.e. gratious passenger and the policy did not cover that risk and there is violation of the policy condition and, therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company has to be exonerated from paying the compensation granted by the Tribunal. But, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in KUSUM LATA Vs. SATBIR[1], the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the claimants and can proceed against the owner of the van in question and recover the amounts. However, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS[2], the claimants have to furnish security for the amounts, they are entitled to receive under the decree of the Tribunal, and as confirmed by this Court. 7. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J April 7, 2011 SP/NRG THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 1631 of 2007 April 7, 2011 SP/NRG [1] I (2011) ACC 907 (SC) [2] (2004) 13 SCC 224