THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1225 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the respondent- insurance company against the decree and order dated 14.02.2002 in O.P.No.800 of 1997 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. Heard. 3. It is a case, where the O.P. was filed for the injuries received by the victim in the accident. Subsequently he died and his L.Rs continued the O.P. The compensation of Rs.55,000/- was awarded by the Court below. 4. The third respondent-insurance company filed this appeal questioning the quantum as well as its liability. 5. As per the petition, on 30.06.1996 the petitioner boarded the lorry bearing No.ABG 414 along with fruits to go to Rajahmundry. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, he met with an accident and the deceased received injuries, which included two crush injuries on both the legs. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.70,000/-. Insurance company filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. ABG 414 driven by first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, who are the wife and son of the injured as the injured died, and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/-. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded is high and the appellant is not liable. Issue No.2 was framed with regard to the liability of the present appellant, but as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same was not properly answered by the Court below. 7. Now, the point for consideration is, whether there are any grounds for reducing the compensation and as to whether the appellant is not liable? 8. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Court below granted only Rs.55,000/-. The material on record reveals that the injured suffered crush injuries of both the legs and there were fractures too. Such being the case, as it was not a case of simple fractures, but of crush injuries, the injuries must have been sufficiently serious. As such, Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Court below cannot be said to be on high side, though the Court has not properly apportioned the claim under each head. However, as already referred, there are absolutely no grounds to reduce the quantum. 9. Coming to the question of liability, according to the first petitioner, he was traveling with fruits at the time of accident in the offending lorry. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per Ex.A1, the FIR given by the petitioner himself, he was going for purchase of fruits and thus, even according to him, he was not traveling with fruits, but was going to purchase fruits. As such, he was not the owner of the goods traveling in the lorry, as the FIR, the immediate document after the accident reveals that the first petitioner himself has stated that he had boarded the lorry for purchase of fruits, it was treated that he was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. Such being the case, the appellant insurance company is not liable for the compensation. However, the amount already deposited, i.e. Rs.25,000/- need not be recovered from the claimants and the insurance company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and the claimants can recover the remaining amount from the owner of the vehicle. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 2nd July 2010, Rns