THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2853 of 2003 Date: 23.09.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited … Appellant and S. Ramachandra Naidu and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2853 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- United India Insurance Company Limited as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-claimant. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 20.01.2003, in M.V.O.P.No.245 of 2000, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.81,500/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.1,40,000/- made by the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 06.08.1999 at about 7-30 p.m., near Singirikonda cross road of Narayanavanam Mandal, on Puttur-Nagalapuram main road, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing registration No.ADG 8555, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident while he was travelling in a goods vehicle. The method and the manner in which the accident had occurred and also the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a compensation of Rs.81,500/-. Hence, the present appeal by the insurer. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer contended that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation for the reason that— firstly; there is no proof to the effect that the claimant was carrying any goods, secondly; at the earliest point of time i.e., while giving the F.I.R. to the police, the claimant did not mention that he was travelling in the goods vehicle along with urea bags, thirdly; there is no evidence to the effect that he was carrying 3 urea bags in the capacity of owner of the goods, and fourthly, admittedly the claimant engaged the offending vehicle in the midway, therefore, he cannot be termed as the owner of the goods. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that while the claimant was waiting at the bus stand, since he could not get the bus, he came into contact with a goods lorry and traveled in that vehicle along with 3 bags of urea, which met with an accident resulting in the injuries to the claimant, and since the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending goods vehicle, the claimant is entitled for compensation. 6. In view of the rival contentions, the core issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant was to be termed as the owner of the goods or an unauthorized passenger? 7. In this regard, it is to be seen that, admittedly, the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle, obviously meant for carrying the goods from one place to another. It is borne out from the record that the claimant engaged the offending goods vehicle in the midway. Whether he was travelling in the offending vehicle along with urea bags or not is a different question altogether. 8. In this connection, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer brought to the notice of this Court that the claimant did not mention about the carrying of urea bags along with him in the said goods vehicle, at the first instance in the F.I.R. given to the police. 9. This contention of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be sustained, for the reason that the F.I.R. need not contain all the material details. Further more, it is to be noticed that in the O.P. before the Tribunal, the claimant categorically stated that he was waiting in the bus stand along with 3 urea bags and in order to demonstrate the purchase of the said urea bags Ex.A-9 receipt, dated 6.8.1999, was also pressed into service. Further, P.W.3, who is an independent witness, who was travelling in the offending goods vehicle along with the claimant, also deposed that the claimant was travelling along with 3 urea bags. Therefore, in my considered view the claimant had successfully established that he was travelling in the offending vehicle along with urea bags. 10. Another contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer before the Tribunal appears to be that the urea bags cannot be termed as goods. I do not find any substance even in this contention also. I do not find any judgment, which indicates that the urea bags shall be excluded from the definition of ‘goods’ and that only the edible items shall be termed as ‘goods’. 11. So far as the other contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer that the claimant is to be termed as unauthorized passenger on account of his engaging the offending vehicle in the midway, therefore, he is to be termed as midway passenger, which disentitles him to claim any compensation is concerned, it is to be seen that no where it is postulated that a goods vehicle shall not carry the goods in the midway. In other words, there is no prohibition as such that the goods shall be carried from one terminal to the other and cannot carry in the midway. Depending upon the availability of space in the vehicle, carrying of goods can be permitted, provided the vehicle is a goods vehicle and the person who accompanies such goods shall have to be treated as the owner of the goods, notwithstanding the fact that he is a midway passenger. The burden heavily lies on the appellant-insurer to establish that there was no scope for carrying any more goods than the goods that were originally booked for transportation. 12. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the insurance policy covers the risk of non-paid fare passengers also. Therefore, even assuming that the claimant is a midway passenger, he is covered by the conditions of the policy. However, that question also may not be very relevant in view of the other factual aspects that have already been discussed above. The Tribunal also had discussed all these aspects in a right perspective. 13. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in awarding of compensation by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. After the judgment is pronounced in the open Court, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of the orders of this Court, dated 06.08.2003, passed in C.M.P.No.17163 of 2003, the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation was deposited. If it were correct, there is no need to pass any orders as regards the payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 23.09.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2853 of 2003 23.09.2010 (Msr)