THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:3221 of 2005 BETWEEN: The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Anantapur APPELLANT AND 1. k. Narayana Naik S/o. Chekra Naik, APSP Head Constable, APSP Cmp. Quarters, Kurnool, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Claimant: Sri Kota Subba Rao Counsel for Respondent: Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation, the National insurance Company represented by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapur, preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 27.06.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.554 of 2003 by the I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. 2. The claimant filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Act against the owner and the Insurer of the offending vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 22.06.2003. The case of the claimant was that he boarded the offending vehicle i.e., Auto bearing Engine No.D12061077 and Chassis No.T05098293003, along with vegetable bags, from Sunnipenta Check Post. At second turning, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it, due to which the vehicle turned turtle and the he received fracture to both hands above fore- arms and also other injuries. Immediately, he was admitted to Government Hospital, Sunnipenta and from there he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment, where he was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days and thereafter admitted to Gowri Gopal hospital, Kurnool as inpatient for a period of one month. It was his case that he was aged about 54 years at the time of accident and working as a Head Constable in APSP, Kurnool. He incurred Rs.60,000/- towards medical and other expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he was permanently disabled, and Iron rods were also inserted in his hands. For removal of iron rods, a further operation is also required. Due to the injuries, he is not able to attend his routine normal duties. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation to him. 3. The owner of the vehicle filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant as he jumped from the auto. It was also stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4. The Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations, contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant as he jumped from the auto to take the vegetable bag, which fell down from the auto, without informing the driver, and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing Engine No.D-12061077 and Chassis No.T-05098293003 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as PWs.1 and the Doctor, who treated the claimant, was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-Insurance Policy was marked. 5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal on Issue No.1 since RW.1 in his evidence did not deny the occurrence of the accident and as per the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2 as well as the report received by the concerned police, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, in the absence of any contra evidence, held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, and answered the issue in favour of the claimant. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the owner of the auto and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation to the claimant, together with interest at 9% per annum. The Tribunal also observed that the Insurance Company is at liberty to seek for reimbursement of the said compensation amount from the owner of the auto, after making the payment to the claimant by directly approaching the Execution Court. Questioning the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for the claimant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is not liable for compensation, as the claimant was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. His second contention is that the driver of the auto was not holding a valid licence at the time of accident. His third contention is that as per the evidence of PW.2-the doctor who treated the claimant, the bill amount of Rs.69,533/- under Ex.X.1, was paid by the Police Department since the claimant was treated under A.P. Police Officers Arogya Bhadratha Scheme. In view of the same, the claimant is not entitled to be awarded medical bill amount. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 9. It is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that he was transporting vegetables from Sunnipenta to Srisailam and was traveling in the said goods carriage auto in the capacity of owner of the said goods, but not as a gratuitous passenger. Even as per Ex.A.1-F.I.R, the claimant was transporting vegetables in the auto. The appellant herein has also admitted the said fact in its counter. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the claimant has been traveling in the auto as a gratuitous passenger, cannot be accepted. 10. Coming to the second contention of the appellant that the driver of the auto was not holding a valid licence at the time of accident, is concerned, under Ex.A.3- charge sheet it is specifically stated that the driver of the auto has no valid driving licence and he has been described as Pump Operator, Srisailam Devasthanam. Therefore as per the well established principles of law, the appellant- insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 11. Insofar as the third contention of the appellant that as per the evidence of PW.2-the doctor who treated the claimant, the bill amount of Rs.69,533/- under Ex.X.1, was paid by the Police Department since the claimant was treated under A.P. Police Officers Arogya Bhadratha Scheme, is concerned, as per the evidence of PW.2 an amount of Rs.69,533/- was billed and the said amount has been paid by the Department since the claimant was a member of A.P. Police Officers Arogya Bhadratha Scheme, and he has been paying contributions every month to the said scheme. The said fact is evident from Ex.A.4-salary certificate submitted by the claimant. The contractual obligation fulfilled by the Police Department will not take away the right of the claimant for reimbursement of medical charges to him. 12. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation[1], held that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “The determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Tribunals even the tort feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelines from such precedents is only to emphasize that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach” Having regard to the evidence adduced and the law laid down by the Apex Court (1) supra, in my considered opinion the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claim claimant and then recover from the owner, which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Hence, I deem it appropriate to reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 29th July, 2010 Js. [1] 1992 SC 1261