THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2858 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 28.03.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.916 of 1999 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant herein is the claimant in the main O.P. On 29.03.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. while the appellant was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.A.D.F.5117 with vegetable load from Yedlapadu to Chilakaluripet by paying necessary hire charges of Rs.50/-, the said lorry met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, whereby the appellant received injuries. Before the court below, the first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the lower court in fixing the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., R1 is not justified since the appellant established that he was travelling in the offending vehicle with goods and he paid the fare to the driver of the vehicle, therefore, the second respondent-Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation payable by the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- Insurance Company argued that the injured is a midway passenger and he is not authorised to travel in a goods vehicle meant for transportation of goods and therefore, any liability arising out of the accident shall not be fastened to the Insurance Company and placed reliance on the decisions reported in National Insurance Co Ltd Vs., Mashetty Vijayalaxmi[1] and New India Assurance Co Ltd., Kurnool V., Rathnavath Sail and Ors.[2] A perusal of the decision reported in New India Assurance Co Ltd’s case (2 supra), their Lordships in unequivocal terms observed that ‘goods’ within the meaning of Section 2 (13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, taken into consideration while interpreting factual aspects of the case. His Lordships observed that “as goods vehicles are meant for transporting goods from one place to another, the owner of the ‘goods’ being transported in the lorry or his representative would board the lorry at the starting point and would accompany them to their destination. “Goods Vehicles’ are not meant to pick up persons in the midway of its journey by paying hire to the driver. If a driver of a goods vehicle picks up passengers in the midway of his journey either with or without their luggage, they would not and cannot be treated as the ‘owners of the goods’ or the representative of the ’owner of the goods’ being carried in the goods vehicle to be covered by section 147 of the Act.” By applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision to the case on hand that the petitioner was travelling in the lorry with his vegetable loads by paying fare to the driver and boarded the lorry in the midway and also on perusal of the contents of Ex.A.1, the certified copy of the First Information Report, it is seen that by the time of the accident, the lorry was with iron load as such there is no possibility of carrying any other goods in the said vehicle. It is further seen from the contents of Ex.A.2 certified copy of the charge sheet, the claimant/appellant along with others were travelling in the lorry as passengers. The learned Judge discussed the evidence of R.W.1, more particularly, Exs.A.1 and A.2, and came to the correct conclusion that the claimant/appellant was travelling in the goods vehicle as a passenger. Viewed from any angle, in the facts and circumstances and also while placing reliance on the decisions stated supra, the finding of the lower Court is justified. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 10th February 2011 bud [1] 2008 ALD (1) 280 [2] AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 25