THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. No.1470 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the Award in O.P.No.189 of 2002, dated 10-01-2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Mahabubnagar, whereunder the Tribunal awarded a compensation in favour of the first respondent/claimant holding that the appellant alone was liable to pay the said amount to the exclusion of the second respondent - Insurance Company. The first respondent herein filed O.P.No.189 of 2002 referred to above claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the permanent disability suffered in the accident on 01-12-2001. At the time of accident, the claimant was traveling in the lorry bearing registration No.AP-22-8784 of the appellant. According to him, he sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and he suffered multiple injuries, which included fracture of right leg. The appellant filed a counter and denied rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and further pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and that the claim should be satisfied by the second respondent only. The second respondent also filed a separate counter denying the allegations made by the claimant and examined R.W.1 and filed Ex.B1 - Insurance Policy. Based on the evidence adduced and the material available on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Based on Exs.A2, A3, A6, A7 and A11 and also the medical evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal held that the claimant suffered 70% permanent disability and based on his income, awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,860/-. Contending that the appellant is not liable to the exclusion of the second respondent, this appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle. Heard the counsel for both the parties. The learned Counsel Sri Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the claimant was not a gratuitous passenger and he was traveling in the vehicle as a labour on behalf of the owner of the cattle, which was being transported, as such the claimant cannot be considered as a gratuitous passenger and he should be considered as a third party. The contention cannot be accepted. The claimant was traveling in the goods vehicle on the pretext as a labour. Ex.B1-Insurance Policy as rightly found by the Tribunal does not cover the risk of any passenger in the lorry of the appellant. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to absolve himself from the liability. In the circumstances, it was rightly held that the appellant alone was liable to pay the compensation. There are no merits in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 24th June, 2010 skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. No.1470 of 2009 Date : 24-06-2010 Between : Mohd. Isaq .. Appellant And Pichakuntla Venkataiah and another .. Respondents