HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.1554 of 2001 Between: Velaga Venkata Rao Appellant And James Francis and two others. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.1554 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The dismissal of M.V.O.P.No.53 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, by the award, dated 03-03-1999 against the Insurer-3rd respondent without costs led the aggrieved/injured petitioner to approach this Court with this appeal. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant was involved in an accident on 21-10-1991 at about 9 a.m. when he was travelling as a passenger in lorry bearing Regn. No.T.N.01-C-1837, near P.E. Chinnayyapalem road junction. The driver applied sudden brakes rashly and negligently resulting in the zinc sheets loaded in the lorry pressing the injured on the right thigh causing grievous injuries all over the body and legs. The injured- petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry jointly and severally towards the suffering undergone due to the fracture of the right leg and loss of earnings of Rs.50/- per day. 3. The insurer alone contested the claim contending that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle at the time of the accident and hence, it was not liable to pay any compensation. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by the insurer. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation and the liability of the respondents. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of R-3. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.1 about the manner of accident and concluding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence of Medical Officer as P.W.2 which clearly established the petitioner suffering a grievous fracture corrected by insertion of a steel rod by surgery and temporary disability for about at least two months. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the petitioner to be entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. While upholding the liability of the driver and owner of the lorry as respondents 1 and 2, the Tribunal concluded that Ex.B-1, insurance policy, is an act policy and the petitioner was travelling in a goods vehicle even without any luggage or any other goods belonging to him. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the unauthorized passenger, excluded from the insurance coverage under Ex.B-1 policy, cannot claim any compensation against the insurer and in this regard, the Tribunal relied o n National Insurance Company, Guntur Vs. Venkatamma and Others[1]. 7. The injured-petitioner challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the quantum of compensation awarded even against respondents 1 and 2 is low and the claim ought not to have been dismissed against the insurer-3rd respondent. The petitioner also challenged the grant of interest only at 12% per annum and not at 15% per annum and therefore, he sought for revising the award. 8. Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Rajesh Karan, learned counsel, representing Sri N.V.Jagannath, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard. 9. The appeal stood dismissed for default against the respondents 1 and 2 vide orders of this Court dated 22-09-2008. 10. As the appeal was already dismissed for default against the respondents 1 and 2, but no steps were taken for its restoration against them, any reconsideration of the quantum of compensation awarded against the respondents 1 and 2 in any manner cannot be undertaken. 11. Concerning the liability of the 3rd respondent also, in view of the admitted facts, there appears no scope for interference in the award in question since the vehicle is undoubtedly a goods vehicle and the petitioner was undoubtedly an unauthorized passenger/traveller not permitted to so travel by the provisions of the statute and the statutory Rules. The insurance policy in question does not cover such unauthorized passengers and on the strength of a precedent, the Tribunal negatived the liability of the 3rd respondent and passed the impugned award and the same has to be upheld and the appeal has to fail. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _________________ 2nd August 2010 KVR [1] 1997 (6) A.L.T. 457