THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 911 of 2000 Date:24.08.2009 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Tenali rep. By its Manager, Guntur …Appellant And Vadithya Venkanna and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.911 OF 2000 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by respondent No.3/Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the Award dated 05.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam in O.P.No.278 of 1995. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company. 3. None appears for the respondent-claimant. 4. Though several grounds have been urged by the appellant Insurance Company, the main ground relates to its liability to pay compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - insurance company also submitted that the challenge to the appeal is only on the ground that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation since the claimant was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle. 5. The point, therefore, arises for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant – insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant – respondent No.1. 6. As per the averments of the claim petition and the evidence of PW.1, who is the injured claimant, he was traveling in the lorry along with goats and sheep by paying Rs.5/- to him as well as Rs.4/- to sheep belonging to him, which were being carried in the lorry. 7. The contention urged by the appellant – insurance company that the tribunal ought to have seen that the version projected by PW.1 to the effect that he was going in the accident lorry along with sheep and goats is untenable and unsustainable and the learned tribunal ought to have disbelieved the version of PW.1 can not at all be countenanced in view of the fact that the appellant – insurance company examined its Senior Assistant as RW1 and marked Exs.B1 and B.2 only to speak about the terms and conditions of the policy. In so far as the manner in which PW.1 was in fact traveling, absolutely no contra evidence is let in by the appellant – insurance company. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly accepted the version of PW.1, which is consistent with Ex.A.1 certified copy of FIR in Crime No.50 of 1994 and Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet. 8. As regards the liability, it is well settled that permitting persons to travel in a goods vehicle is prohibited, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of any damages, death or personal injuries sustained by the said persons, unless and until a separate premium has been paid to such persons. It is also argued before the learned Tribunal that as per the terms of Ex.B.1 policy, the risk of driver, cleaner and six coolies engaged by the owner of the vehicle for loading and unloading purpose is covered. RW1 – the Senior Assistant examined on behalf of the appellant – Insurance company admitted the said fact in the cross-examination besides further admitting that an additional premium of Rs.50/- towards one non fare paying passenger, Rs.45/- towards covering the risk of driver, cleaner and additional coolie and Rs.90/- towards the risk of six coolies is paid under the policy. 9. Section 2(13) defines goods as follows: 2(13) “goods” includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers traveling in the vehicle: 10. From the above definition, indisputably goods include live-stock. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly observed that live stock comes within the purview of the definition of goods under the Motor Vehicles Act and carrying live stock as such, is not prohibited in a goods vehicle. Further as disclosed from the evidence of RW1, there is a stipulation mentioned in Ex.B.1 – policy to the effect that the extra premium has been paid as indicated above. 11. Under these circumstances, it is not open for the appellant – insurance company to contend that it cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation since both goat and sheep were being carried in the goods vehicle along with PW.1. According to him, the owner of the said live-stock is not covered under the policy and that the Act does not contemplate any such liability against the Insurance Company. The contention urged by the appellant- insurance company is wholly incorrect on facts as well as under law as discussed hereinbefore. 12. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed without costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J 24th August, 2009 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.911 OF 2000 DATED: 24.08.2009