IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3348 of 2003 Between: Konda Anjaneyulu .. Appellant AND G. Venkateswarlu and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.607 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 28-03-2003. The appellant/claimant was travelling in lorry No.ADF 5117 on 29-03-1999 at about 2.00 P.M. claiming to have paid hire charges for boarding the lorry with a load of baskets. The lorry was involved in an accident near Ganapavaram due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver and the claimant suffered severe injuries, for which he was treated at Government General hospital, Guntur. Crime No.25 of 1999 of Nadendla police station was registered and due to amputation of right leg and surgery to the left leg due to the injuries caused in the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disablement in spite of treatment at huge expense. Hence, the claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the claims of the claimant and contended that the compensation claimed is speculative. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1 corroborated by the first information report Ex.A.1 and the charge-sheet Ex.A.3 as probablising that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal noted that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the medical experts about the injuries, treatment and the consequences corroborated by Ex.A.4 case sheet and Ex.A.2 wound certificate showed the claimant suffering amputation of right leg below the knee and fracture of left meta tarsal and dislocation of second, third and fourth toes of left foot. The disability was noted to have been certified by P.W.3 to be 55% and the age of the claimant was taken at 45 years with reference to Ex.A.4 and the evidence of P.W.1. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. The loss of future earnings was calculated at 55% of Rs.15,000/- per annum and on applying a multiplier, the same was assessed at Rs.1,23,750/-. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A.1 first information report registered on the statement of the driver of the vehicle made no reference to P.W.1 boarding the lorry with any goods or paying any charges. The evidence of P.W.1 about loading the vehicle with baskets was noted to be uncorroborated and consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the injured was travelling in the vehicle as a passenger. With reference to Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited [2001 (4) CCC 19 (SC)], the Tribunal considered the insurer to be not liable to pay compensation to a gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods vehicle. Consequently, it dismissed the claim against the insurer and granted an award against the owner of the vehicle only for Rs.1,43,750/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant is before this Court with this appeal contending that he was not a passenger travelling in the vehicle and the liability ought to have been fixed on the 2nd respondent insurer also to pay just and adequate compensation. Heard Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. The findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award on all other aspects are not in question in the present appeal, the only question being about the liability of the insurer to compensate the appellant. Ex.A.1 first information report is the earliest version about the incident and the first information report was registered on the statement of the lorry driver. He only stated about the petitioner and two others boarding the lorry at Yedlapadu and made no reference to their being accompanied by any goods. Ex.A.3 certified copy of the charge-sheet containing the result of independent statutory investigation also only stated about the lorry going with a load of steel rods and P.W.1 and others getting into the lorry at Yedlapadu to go to Ganapavaram. While Exs.A.2 and A.4 threw no light on this question, the claimant himself as P.W.1 stated for the first time about paying Rs.10/- while taking the baskets in the lorry. However, it was not clear as to whether the amount of Rs.10/- was paid for the travel of P.W.1 with his luggage of baskets or for the baskets as goods along with which he also travelled. P.W.1 during his cross-examination stated that the lorry was loaded with iron rods fully by the time he and three others boarded the lorry at Yedlapadu. The witness denied the suggestions about speaking falsehood about loading any baskets into the lorry, but there is no corroboration independent or even otherwise for his claim of boarding a fully loaded lorry with further load of baskets. The Senior Assistant of the insurer as R.W.1 claimed that the investigator appointed by the insurer adversely reported against the claim and he claimed that the owner of the vehicle stated the injured to be passengers in the vehicle. The witness is not in any way personally interested in resorting to untruth except in the performance of the duties of his job with the insurer and though Ex.A.3 did not specifically state P.W.1 and others to be travelling as passengers, the implications are explicit from the manner of their boarding the lorry. Under such circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal about P.W.1 travelling in the lorry as a passenger and about the availability of the principle laid down by the Apex Court against any liability for the insurer in respect of such gratuitous passengers cannot be considered as improper or unreasonable. The appeal has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-02-2011 Svv