THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1638 of 2007 Date: 07.12.2010 Between: Utukuri Bixamaiah … Appellant And Rangaraju Sandeep and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1638 of 2007 JUDGMENT : Owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP 24T 7707 and 7708 is the appellant herein and he questions not only quantum of compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- awarded to the injured in Award, dated 01.02.2007, in O.P.No.196 of 2005, but also contends that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify him in view of coverage of Ex.B-1 copy of Insurance Policy for the accident vehicle. 2. There is no dispute about factum of the accident, which took place, and in which the claimant/P.W.2 sustaining grievous injuries. According to the claimant, he was travelling in the accident vehicle along with a rice bag after paying passenger fare and when he asked the driver to stop the vehicle for answering nature calls, the driver stopped the same and when he was getting down from the tractor, the driver suddenly started the tractor, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. The appellant/owner of tractor generally denied the allegations in the claim petition and put the claimant to strict proof of those allegations. He further pleaded that since there is insurance coverage for the accident vehicle, he is not liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company pleaded that it is not liable to pay compensation as the injured was travelling in the accident vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. After enquiry and after considering oral and documentary evidence, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injured-claimant was travelling in the accident vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. 3. P.W.1 is father of the minor injured. It is he, who gave First Information Report to the police as per Ex.A-1. In Ex.A-1 F.I.R., P.W.1 did not state about his son P.W.2 travelling in the accident vehicle along with a rice bag. The injured as P.W.2 stated that he was travelling in the accident vehicle along with a rice bag. Owner of the accident vehicle as R.W.1 denied P.W.2 paying any fare for travelling in the accident vehicle. Travelling in the tractor and trailer along with one rice bag will not make the injured as owner of goods being transported in the accident vehicle. At best, it can be said that he was carrying luggage with him, but he cannot be termed as owner of goods being transported in the vehicle, even if his case in the pleading and his evidence are accepted. It follows that P.W.2 was travelling in the tractor as a passenger. There is no evidence to show that P.W.2 paid any fare for travelling in the accident vehicle. Even though R.W.1 in his cross- examination claims that he was also in the tractor at that time, it was not pleaded by him in his counter. 4. Whether fare is paid or not paid, P.W.2 remained only as a passenger in the accident vehicle, which is not a passenger vehicle. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to absolve its liability to indemnify the insured. The Insurance Company filed Ex.B-1 copy of Insurance Policy, which does not cover the risk of either fare paid passenger or unauthorized passenger in the accident vehicle. Therefore, the lower Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in this case and that only owner of the accident vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the injured. Contention of R.W.1 that the injured was intruder into the accident vehicle cannot be believable. Driver of the accident vehicle was not examined by the insured. 5. With regard to quantum of compensation, the lower Tribunal based its conclusion on nature of injuries sustained by the injured as per Ex.A-3 discharge summary of Care Hospital, Hyderabad. As per Ex.A-3, P.W.2 was having fracture dislocation of left hip and fracture of both rami of pubic bone. The claimant did not examine the doctor, who issued Ex.A-3 discharge summary. Care Hospital, Hyderabad, is a private hospital and Ex.A-3 discharge summary can be proved only by examining the doctor, who issued the same. It is not a public document as per Motor Vehicles Rules, inasmuch as, it is not a wound certificate issued by a Government Hospital by extracting the details of wounds from the accident register maintained by the hospital during the regular course of its work. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for each of the fractures, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure, and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. When compensation is granted for the fractures, it is granted towards pain and suffering due to those fractures. The claimant did not file any records to show that he incurred medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-. 6. In any event, Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet shows that P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries in the accident. In the circumstances, it would be just and reasonable to award Rs.15,000/- for each of the two fractures, and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and other heads, totalling to Rs.40,000/-. Amount of compensation at Rs.1,30,000/- awarded by the lower Tribunal is baseless and undoubtedly excessive. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, altering the compensation amount from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). No costs. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 07.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1638 of 2007 07.12.2010 (Msr)