IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2412 OF 1999 BETWEEN Lysetti Kondababu. …APPELLANT AND Kothem Sreenu and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. P. B. Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K.V. Ramana Rao The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimant, who filed a claim petition being MVOP.No.233 of 1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The tribunal below has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability and disallowed the rest of the claim. To the extent of the disallowed claim, the present appeal is filed. 2. The claimant, who was a minor then, attained majority. The claimant was traveling along with his grandmother in the tractor and trailor bearing No. AP 5 T 1983 and 1984. On 15.12.1994 the claimant along with his grandmother had boarded the said tractor and sat on the stone heap in the trailor. While the said vehicle reached the outskirts of Mallavaram, it turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent resulting in serious injuries to the left hand, face and multiplies injuries to the claimant and the left hand of the claimant was completely amputated. The police registered a case in Cr.No.97 of 1994 and later the present claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The insurance company – respondent no.3 before the tribunal resisted the claim on the ground that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and that he was not entitled to any compensation, as he was not covered by the policy. The tribunal below has considered the evidence on record and keeping in view the admitted case of the appellant/claimant came to the conclusion that the insurance company cannot be said to be liable as the claimant was found traveling in a goods vehicle as passenger. However, under no fault liability, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. To the extent of disallowed claim, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who strenuously contended that the appellant, who was then a minor boy, suffered permanent disability and the injury is required to be adequately compensated. It is also submitted that the case has to be considered on merits and even if the insurance company, for any reason, is not liable, the claim deserves to be allowed against the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. So far as the legal position, which is now well-settled, is concerned, the liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) clearly shows that the claimant was traveling in a goods vehicle and as such, the policy does not require to cover the risk of such persons, who are traveling in a goods carriage, as stipulated under Section 147(1)(c) of the Act. The insurance company, therefore, is rightly found to be not liable for the compensation claimed. So far as the compensation awarded under no fault liability is concerned, since it is a case of injury under Section 140(2) of the Act the maximum amount of compensation permissible in case of permanent disability is Rs.25,000/-, which has already been granted by the tribunal. Secondly, this appeal already stood dismissed against the owner, who is respondent No.2 in the appeal. Even if the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, the claim against the owner also cannot be allowed, as the appeal stands dismissed against him. In the result, I am constrained to dismiss the appeal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 11, 2009 DSK