IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH (11TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2106 of 2010 Between: M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Kurnool … Appellant And: K. Ramesh & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2106 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2009 in OP No.1023 of 1998 on the file of the MACT cum III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.63,480/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.90,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicles accident that took place on 02.02.1998. According to the claimant, on that day, himself and other ryots of Kallubavi and Madira villages, hired the lorry for transporting their produce of ‘Vamu’ to Kurnool market for sale and on the way, the lorry was stopped near Siruguppa check post and the claimant and others got down from the lorry and after complying the formalities at the check post, when they were boarding the lorry, the driver without observing the claimant and others, who were in the process of boarding the lorry, started the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the petitioner fell down and the left front wheel of the lorry ran over his foot, resulting in grievous injury. The petitioner was taken to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Adoni and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool. 4. The 2nd respondent herein owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During the trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1 were marked on behalf of the claimant. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 1to B.4 were marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.63,480/-. The quantum of compensation estimated by the Tribunal is also not seriously disputed. 7. The only contention raised by the appellant-insurer is that the claimant was only unauthorized passenger in the lorry which is a goods vehicle and the risk is not covered by the policy Ex.B.1 and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the appellant- insurer. The learned counsel for the first respondent-claimant on the other hand would contend that the claimant who accompanied the goods namely ‘Vamu’ bags in the lorry and having engaged the vehicle for the purpose of transporting the said goods along with produce of other ryots to Kurnool market and the claimant was travelling in the lorry as a owner of the goods and hence, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 8. According to the claimant, he was having Ac.4.55 cents of land in Sy.No.29/2 of Mandagiri village and cultivated the same by raising ‘Vamu’ crop and the said land originally belongs to one Roshan Abdul Ahad Sab, who was the original pattedar and from him, one Eeramma W/o K Beerappa, who is the grand mother of the claimant, purchased the said land under registered sale deed Ex.A.7. He raised ‘Vamu’ crop therein and the said produce was being transported in the lorry at the time of the accident. In addition to Ex.A.7 title deed, the claimant also filed Ex.A.6 certified copy of adangal for the said land. The Tribunal in the context of estimating the income of the claimant, observed that there was no explanation from the claimant about his relationship with the purchaser of the land and hence, it cannot be said that the claimant was having any land and getting any income there- from. In the evidence, PW.1 has stated that Eeramma, the purchaser of the land under Ex.A.7, is his grand mother but the same is not confronted. There is absolutely nothing on record to suspect the relationship of the claimant with Eeramma. When once the claimant has produced the original deed Ex.A.7 and also the adangal Ex.A.6 showing that the claimant’s grand mother Eeramma is the owner of the land and crop is also raised thereon, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all to show that the claimant was cultivating the land. The evidence, when appreciated in its totality, would go to show that the claimant raised ‘Vamu’ crop in the said land and along with the other ryots of the village, he engaged the lorry for the purpose of transporting ‘vamu’ bags to Kurnool market. The evidence on record also shows that when the lorry stopped at Siriguppa check post, for complying the formalities at the check post, the claimant and others got down from the lorry and while they were boarding the lorry again, the driver started the vehicle without taking necessary care and caution and therefore, the accident occurred. It cannot therefore be said that the claimant was an unauthorized passenger on a goods vehicle. On the other hand, the evidence on record establishes the fact that the claimant along with others engaged lorry for the purpose of transporting goods and in fact, they were accompanying the goods at the time of the accident. Admittedly, Ex.B.1 policy covers the risk of the person, who is the owner of the goods and also accompanying the goods as such. Fastening of joint and several liability on the appellant-insurer by the Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case, does not therefore call for any interference. However, the claimant is entitled for interest at 6% per annum from 31.03.2008, the date on which the matter was earlier remanded by this Court. 9. In the result, subject to the above modification regarding the interest, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.11.2011 bss