IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.2729 of 2000 Between: R.Yadagiri. … Petitioner And 1. Suresh Kumar. 2. United India Insurance Company limited, represented by its Regional Manager. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No. 2729 of 2000 ORDER: - This appeal is filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- which was disallowed by the tribunal below except for Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability. The case of the appellant is that on 9.7.1996 after attending Sramadanam programme, he was returning home in a jeep bearing No.AP-23-7597 belonging to 1st respondent, and insured with 2nd respondent, and when it reached near Chintakunta village at about 4.15 P.M., the said jeep turned turtle on account of heavy rains and the claimant sustained fracture of right leg and other injuries. He was hospitalised for a prolonged period and he lost salary for five months and incurred expenditure on account of the said medical treatment. He therefore, claims compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- for the said injury. Before the Tribunal below, 2nd respondent-Insurance company contested the claim of the claimant. While admitting that the vehicle was insured it, the 2nd respondent claimed that the owner of the vehicle never reported the accident and as such they are not liable to pay the compensation, as there is no allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and nothing was attributed against the driver. On point No.1, the Tribunal found that there is no allegation of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the jeep and it also found that the vehicle was being driven at a speed of 60 k.m. per hour and because of the heavy rain, the vehicle skidded and turned turtle and, therefore, nothing can be attributed against the driver of the vehicle and he cannot be found fault with the same. Once the said finding is reached in favour of the driver and owner of the vehicle, the liability of the insurance company, even otherwise, is not attractive. Further, with regard to liability of the insurance company, the claimant as P.W.1 in his evidence specifically admitted that, “I was on official duty at the time of accident. The jeep in which we were travelling does not belong to the Government. I do not know whether our Deputy Executive Engineer had taken the said jeep on hire or not.” The aforesaid evidence was relied upon by the Tribunal to conclude that no liability can be imposed on the insurance company as the appellant was only a gratuitous passenger. However, under no fault liability the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest. No interference with the said order is called for on the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J) 13.11.2009. Lmv