THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1709 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 27.01.2003, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.O.P.No.951 of 1999. On 05.03.1996, while the appellant was travelling in a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN59-C 6769, near Sontyam Village, the lorry turned turtle and he sustained injuries. He was shifted to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam for treatment. It is stated that as on the date of the accident, the appellant was aged 37 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. He therefore filed the present M.O.P., claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injures sustained by him in the said accident. The first respondent, the owner of the lorry, remained ex- parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the appellant and contending that it is not liable to pay the compensation. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, by taking into consideration the injuries sustained by him and other relevant factors, awarded a sum of Rs.43,000/- to the appellant payable by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, has granted a sum of Rs.43,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a, towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award of the Tribunal needs no interference. Insofar as exonerating the second respondent-Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant was admittedly travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and sustained injuries in the accident. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Asha Rani and others[1] that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, when the injured/deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal after referring to the said judgment has rightly exonerated the second respondent- Insurance Company from its liability. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] 2002(4) Decisions Today (SC) 71