HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4082 of 2003 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4082 of 2003 JUDGMENT: United India Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03-12-2002 in O.P.No.520 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 10-10-2000 at about 1 p.m. G.Srinivas–claimant was travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP- 28M-7259 and near Koheda cross road at Mangalpalli gate, the jeep was driven in a rash and negligent driving at high speed and the driver lost control over vehicle and it turned turtle, as a result, the claimant suffered fractures and grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the jeep involved in the accident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 on behalf of the claimant and RW-1 and Ex.B-1 insurance policy for respondents in OP, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of OP till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the insurer of the jeep filed this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injured was traveling in a jeep as unauthorized passenger and when the conditions of the insurance policy are violated, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and in any case, the occurrence of accident is in doubt. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the jeep is covered by comprehensive insurance policy and even if the claimant traveled as unauthorized passenger, the insurance company cannot be escape its liability. 5. Having heard both the counsel and upon perusing the record, the finding as to rash and negligent driving of the jeep cannot be seriously disputed in view of the overwhelming evidence on record. Coming to the liability as to payment of compensation, it is not disputed that the jeep is covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy and it is a comprehensive insurance policy and in such case, the insurance company cannot be exonerated of its liability to pay compensation. Thus, the insurance company is also liable to pay the compensation awarded by the court below. However, the interest is reduced to 7% per annum. 6. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 05-8-2010 kk HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4082 of 2003 5-8-2010