THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1546 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 15.10.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.687 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, consequent on the death of the deceased Farid in a motor accident, for a claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. The lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and fastened the liability against the owner of the vehicle, who is the 1st respondent therein. The case of the petitioner is that on 16.04.1999 at about 2.30 p.m. while the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing No.ADB-9367 with a load of pillows and beds from Piduguralla to Sattenapalli and when he was getting down from the cabin, the driver started the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the left front tyre ran over the left leg of the deceased due to which the deceased received injuries and subsequently died while undergoing treatment. The deceased was said to be earning about Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner is a major, who is the son of the deceased and filed the claim petition. The insurance company pleaded that the deceased was not earning so much and the incident was not due to the fault of the driver of the vehicle and furthermore the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation since the deceased was a traveler in a goods vehicle. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the deceased received injuries in the motor accident and died and granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal should have considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also the probabilities of the case and should have granted the compensation against the insurance company. According to him, though it was not initially pleaded that the deceased was carrying the beds and pillows, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly go to show that he was doing such a business and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence, merely because the same was not mentioned by the deceased in his statement to the police. Even otherwise, according to him, there is an ambiguity as to whether the deceased received injuries after getting down from the lorry or in the process of getting down from the lorry. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the evidence of P.W.2 clearly goes to show that after the deceased got down from the lorry, the left front tyre of the lorry ran over the deceased and caused the injuries. He is only available witness for the incident, who was cross-examined. Evidently, the statement of the deceased, which was the basis of an F.I.R., does not disclose the factum of carrying the goods but the factum of his receiving of injuries is not in dispute. The state of mind when the statement was recorded is also not clear. Furthermore, the probability of the front tyre of the lorry running over the left leg of the deceased appears to be improper when he was in the process of getting down from the lorry. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the evidence of P.W.2 has to be given credence and if that evidence is accepted the deceased has received injuries after getting down from the lorry and is a third party and the question whether he was carrying the goods and a gratuitous passenger does not arise for consideration. Therefore, even there is a valid insurance the insurance company cannot avoid the liability. Evidently, the petitioner is aged about 25 years and is a major and cannot claim that he was solely dependant on the deceased. He was earning by himself and, therefore, he must have suffered loss of love and affection and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal appears to be reasonable and proper. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed confirming the award passed by the lower Tribunal and the insurance company is to pay the amount since the claim comes within the claim of third party risk. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 08-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1546 of 2011 DATE: 08-08-2011 MR