HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1364 AND 1367 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the award in O.P.No.56 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries said to have been received by the claimant in a motor accident. On 30.10.1998 while the claimant unloading the timber from the lorry bearing No.MP 23 DA 2607, one log of timber fell on the left leg of the petitioner and received grievous injuries and he was treated in hospital and spent money for treatment. Respondent No.1 is owner of the lorry, respondent No.2 is driver of the lorry, respondent No.3 is employer for whose benefit the timber is transported and respondent No.4 is the Insurance Company. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a counter supporting the claim of the petitioner and they further submitted that the vehicle was insured with the 4th respondent but disputed about the earning capacity of the petitioner and the quantum of compensation. Respondent No.3 filed a counter contending that it has nothing to do with the nature of the incident, but admitted that the claimant was employed to unload the timber by the society and the contract was entered by the transport company M/s. Nirbhai Transport, therefore, there is no liability to the 3rd respondent. Respondent No.4 filed a counter denying the contention that there is no involvement of the lorry and there is no rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and therefore, it is not liable and as the incident has happened at the time of unloading the timber, the transporter is a necessary party. Necessary issues were framed for consideration and after considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.45,000/- against respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 and dismissed the claim against respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.1364 of 2011, whereas the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.1367 of 2011 disputing its liability. 3. So far as the nature of the incident is concerned and the fact that when the claimant was unloading the timber, the log has fallen on his leg and received grievous injuries concerned, there is no dispute. The lower Tribunal found that from the evidence of RW.2 and Ex.B.3 the transporter has to appoint the driver etc., and the contractor has to bear all the expenses involved in transporting of the timber. 4. As can be seen from the award of the Tribunal, the petitioner is said to have sustained an injury on left leg above knee and he was shifted to Singareni hospital and thereafter, treated at NIMS as inpatient and he claims to have spent nearly Rs.80,000/-. The lower Tribunal has relied upon the certificate Ex.A.1 where there is a fracture of left leg middle 1/3rd shaft, which is a grievous injury. The petitioner has not chosen to examine the doctor to prove that he suffered any disability and the proof of the medical expenses is also not there and there is also no proof as to how long the claimant was in hospital. Therefore, taking into consideration the solitary testimony of the claimant and Exs.A.1 and A.2, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards injuries and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. There is no other evidence on record to sustain any enhancement of claim made by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, M.A.C.M.A.No.1364 of 2011 has to be dismissed. 5. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, the lower Court has relied on the decision reported in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Lakshmi and another (2001 ACJ 910) and also the decision reported in Babu Vs. Ramesan (1996 ACJ 988), which covers cases where a labourer, who was involved in loading or unloading will also come within the coverage of the policy. Reliance is also placed on Judgment reported in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Thimmawwa and others (1989 ACJ 149). Evidently, the lorry is meant for transporting of the logs and the vehicle was insured and the very purpose of insurance is to cover risk when the vehicle was in use and when the vehicle was engaged for transporting of the goods, it is not complete unless the goods are unloaded. Therefore, I do not also find any merits in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:27.09.2011 INL