THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 3788 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 10.6.2003 passed in O.P.No. 1065 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present C.M.A. is filed. Petitioners are the parents of the deceased N. Narsimhulu, aged 13 years, who died in motor accident on 17.11.2000. The tribunal below while assessing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, R.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.B-1 to B-3 granted compensation to the claimants against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved against the same, the present C.M.A. is filed. Appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.No. 1065 of 2001. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is of on two folds. One is that the deceased is an unauthorized passenger, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the petitioners. Secondly, the brother of the deceased is not having a valid driving license and hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation payable to the petitioners. The counsel for the respondents while replying to the above said arguments urged that the deceased is not an authorized passenger and he met with the accident at the place of work. Therefore, it cannot be termed as the deceased was unauthorised passenger. Now the point for consideration is whether the Order of the tribunal below is sustainable? The manner of accident was not disputed. The only crux of the issue is whether the deceased is an unauthorised passenger. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 (the father of the deceased), P.W.2 is his elder son and working as labourer in the lorry. On the date of the accident, the deceased went to his elder son N. Ramesh for giving lunch box and after giving the same he sat on the body of the stationed lorry Tipper bearing No. ABT 1767, which was loaded with stones and the driver of the said vehicle suddenly started it and while taking reverse without seeing the pit behind it, it fell down and the deceased came underneath the lorry and died on the spot. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased also deposed that on 17.11.2000 while he was working at place of quarry, his brother deceased Narsimhulu brought meals box to him and after giving box, he sat on the body of the lorry which was loaded with stones and the driver of the lorry suddenly started it resulting the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R., Ex.A-2 is the charge sheet. The recitals of Ex.A-2 reads that the deceased in order to return to his house he sat on the lorry tipper met with the accident. It is an admitted fact that the deceased met with the accident while offending vehicle was taking reverse fell into a ditch resulting his death. It is an admitted fact that the deceased brought lunch box to his brother P.W.2, who is attending the work as cooli in the quarry. In order to take return journey, he sat in the vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that the accident took place in the quarry itself. The facts and circumstances and the evidence on record clearly reads that the deceased came to the place of accident only to hand over the lunch box to his brother. In any view of the matter, the circumstances clearly show that the deceased is not an unauthorised passenger. The circumstances also show that he met with an accident while he sat in the offending vehicle. In the said circumstances of the case, we can term him as third party. The element of payment of any fare and permitting, the deceased by the driver of the offending vehicle is not on record. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased being the third party is entitled and the insurance company shall indemnify the compensation payable to the claimants. The tribunal below also stated while answering on Issue No.2 that P.Ws.1 and 2 are working as labourers and P.W.1 also stated in his evidence that his wife is also working as labour. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also corroborated by Ex.P-5 postmortem certificate. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, as the deceased is a third party to the accident, the insurance company i.e. respondent No. 2 and the owner of the lorry-respondent No.1 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. As there is no cross appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners, the amount of compensation granted by the tribunal below in my view is reasonable. As per the impugned Order R.W-2 is Motor Vehicle Inspector. His evidence is that the license was issued to the driver of the offending vehicle to drive only light motor vehicles and the endorsement on the driving license authorizing him to drive heavy goods vehicle is a bogus and not genuine. The finding of the tribunal is that it was suggested to R.W.2 that the authorities have rightly authorized the driver to drive the heavy goods vehicle and that same was not in their records, which is denied. The tribunal discussed the evidentiary value of R.Ws.1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that the contention raised by the insurance company is not tenable. In view of the finding of the tribunal, I see no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Viewed from any angle, the finding of the tribunal is sustainable and the C.M.A. is dismissed. However, while relying on the decision reported in SARLA VERMA(SMT) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS[1], the rate of interest @9% p.a. granted by the tribunal below is reduced to 6% p.a. With this modification, the C.M.A. is dismissed. ___________________ 8.4.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C 121