THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.962 of 2003 Date: 09.09.2010 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited … Appellant and Ravu Koteswara Rao and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.962 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Oriental Insurance Company Limited as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5-claimants. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 25.9.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.926 of 1998, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the petition by awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants for the death of the deceased Ravu Srinivasa Rao, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 17.6.1998, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing No.AP 7U 6489, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurer. 3. The appellant herein is the insurer, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the claimants and respondent No.6 is the owner of the offending lorry. 4. The particulars regarding the method and manner in which the accident took place and also the aspect of negligence are not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the petition by awarding total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or not? 6. In this context, it is to be seen that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle along with the goods. Of course, there is no clarity as to whether the deceased was the owner of the goods or the person accompanying the goods. 7. Though a specific contention has been raised by the appellant-insurer before the Tribunal that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced as regards the status of the deceased while travelling in the offending vehicle. When there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased paid fair to the driver of the vehicle and was travelling so as to declare him as a gratuitous passenger, the only presumption that could be drawn is that the deceased was either the owner of the goods or the person accompanying the goods. 8. As already pointed out, admittedly, when the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle, particularly when there is no evidence on record as to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, this Court cannot arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal had given cogent reasons in all other aspects, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal while allowing the petition. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 09.09.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.962 of 2003 09.09.2010 (Msr)