HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCLLANEOUS APPEAL No.717 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal against the order in O.P. No.559 of 1996 dated 06-04-1999 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 08-05-1996 at about 3-00 AM, while the claimant was travelling in the lorry bearing No.ATT – 6865, belonging to respondent No.1, along with the load of Mangos from Chinnamodi to Hyderabad, at the outskirts of Kattangur Village on NH – 9, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, it turned turtle, as a result, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.43 of 1996 was registered by the Kattangur Police Station and investigated into. Immediately after the accident, claimant was shifted to Government Hosptial, Nalgonda and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on the next day and after discharge from that hospital, he took treatment at private hospitals also. He was doing business and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and due to the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads. (b) Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, United India Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.ATT – 6865 ? 2. Whether the petitioner (claimant) is entitled for compensation, If so, what is the quantum of amount ? 3. To what relief ? 4. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, insurance policy. 5. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.27,000/- to the claimant making respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, alone liable for payment of compensation with interest at 12% per annum, holding that the claimant was a passenger in a goods vehicle, as such, insurance company – respondent No.2 is not liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, claimant filed this appeal. 6. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the lorry, and Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, and perused the material on record. 7. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the material on record clearly reveals that claimant was travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods, Mangos, by engaging the lorry for transportation of the Mangos, as such, insurance company is also liable for payment of compensation and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 9. The Tribunal holding that there is no sufficient material to show that the claimant was travelling along with his goods in the lorry and further holding that even assuming that he was travelling along with his goods also, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation, as the lorry is a goods vehicle and only owner of the lorry is liable. 10. The finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was not travelling along with his goods in the lorry cannot be accepted. Even in the FIR, it is mentioned that the claimant is travelling with the goods. He deposed that he was travelling along with the goods by engaging the lorry for transportation of the Mangos. On the weight of certain admissions in the cross-examination of the claimant as PW.1, Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that claimant was not travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods. Obviously, none is present in the lorry at the time of accident. In case, claimant was not the owner of the goods, the real owner, in all probability, would be present in the lorry at the time of accident. Thus, case of the claimant that he was travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods can be accepted and consequently insurance company shall also be made liable for payment of compensation and it is accordingly made liable. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Tribunal awarded Rs.27,000/- to the claimant, as he suffered only a fracture to his left femur and he was treated in Government Hospitals and there is no authentic material to show that he took treatment in private hospitals also. Therefore, Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards fracture of left femur and Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses, and in all Rs.27,000/-. As the claimant suffered fracture to his left femur, another Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of earnings during the period of treatment etc. However, rate of interest can be reduced to 7.5% per annum from 12% from the date of petition and it is accordingly reduced. 12. Accordingly, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.37,000/- from Rs.27,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, on the total compensation, from the date of petition, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 30, 2010. PV