IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.NOS. 2051 AND 1367 OF 2006 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.2051 of 2006: National Insurance Company Ltd., .....APPELLANT AND Soma Vasantha Rao and others. ....RESPONDENTS Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.1367 of 2006: Soma Vasantha Rao and others. .....APPELLANT AND Smt M.Kulayamma and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.NOs. 2051 AND 1367 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the appeals are arise out of same order, they are being taken up for disposal together. 2. The appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, “the Act”), are directed against the order and decree, dated 19.04.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.277 of 2004, on the file of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) – cum – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddapah, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition, filed under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1367 of 2006, in a road accident, was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.16,000/-. 3. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 12.08.2003, the claimant engaged mini lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 2997 belonging to respondent No.1 for transportation of Green Mirchi from Villages nearby Pulivendula Town, and Anjaneyulu and other coolies for loading and unloading of said Mirchi. When the mini lorry reached near Rayalapuram Village, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash or negligent manner with high speed and failed to control the same, due to which the offending vehicle fell down on the left side of the road with Mirchi load; the owner of the vehicle and coolies sustained injuries and mirchi load was damaged. Hence, the petition. 5. Respondent No.2, National Insurance Company Limited, filed written statement stating that the petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the claimant is put to strict proof of the allegations made in the petition including that the mini lorry of respondent No.1 involved in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry; that the claimant and coolies received injuries; that the mirchi load was damaged; the amount spent by the claimant for medicines; earnings of the claimant; petition claim etc. It is stated that the enquiry reveals that the driver of the lorry does not possess valid driving licence, and that the lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 4915 belonging to respondent No.1 was insured with respondent No.2 but not the lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 2997; that the claimant received injuries and had taken treatment in the Government Hospital and as there is no permanent disability; that the amount claimed by the claimant is also excessive. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Respondent No.3 filed written statement stating that the lorry of respondent No.1 was not financed with respondent No.3 and so, it is not a necessary party to the proceedings; and that a perusal of the record discloses that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and so, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the same. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the petition against respondent No.3. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the claimant received injuries due to negligent act of driver of crime vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief?” 8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.16,000/- to the claimant. Having dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred M.A.CMA.No.1367 of 2005. Aggrieved by the order of fixing liability on it, the Insurance Company preferred M.A.CMA.No.2051 of 2006. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature; that the Doctor, who treated the claimant, was not examined to show the extent of disability sustained by the claimant; that the policy does not cover the risk of owner of the goods and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the claimant sustained crush injury on the leg and fore arm; that Ex.A.2 - Wound Certificate, would clearly go to show that there was 30% disability; that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate; that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, and that in view of the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Yarava Lakshmi Devi[1], even though the risk of the owner of the goods is not covered, as the claimant is a third party, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and hence, he prays to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The claimant was travelling in the mini lorry as owner of goods at the time of the accident. Driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and as a result, the vehicle turned turtle on the left side of the road. It is not in dispute that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The only questions are whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is sustainable or not and whether the policy covers the risk of owner of goods or not? 12. As per Ex.A.2 would certificate, the claimant sustained the following injuries: “1. Crush injury of lower 1/3rd of right fore arm above wrist joint and adjoining dorsum of hand C irregular tear of skin, damaging the tenderness, muscles deep. 2. Lacerated injury of the fore head near hair line vertical 4 cm x ½ cm bond deep. 3. X-Ray right forearm- No fracture.” The Doctor, who treated the claimant, opined that the above injuries are simple in nature. But, considering the fact that there was crush injury, the claimant might have taken treatment as an inpatient for a considerable time. He also filed Ex.A.4 - Medical Bills issued by Dr.D.Nagadasthagiri Reddy, Kalyan Chakravarthi Hospital, Proddatur, which would clearly go to show that the claimant incurred an amount of Rs.5,950/- towards medical expenses. The claimant is a native of K.Kothapalli Village, Maddanur Mandal, Cuddapah District, and he would have incurred certain expenditure towards transport for going to the hospital and coming back. Similarly, the claimant must have undergone some pain and suffering due to the crush injury. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges; Rs.6,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment; Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.2,000/- for loss of earnings. Thus, in all, an amount of Rs.11,000/- was granted besides an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards damage of 200 bags of green mirchi, which were loaded in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. So, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence, granted an amount of Rs.16,000/- in total, which cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable. 13. Coming to the liability of the Insurance Company, R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance company, stated that Ex.B1 does not cover the risk of the owner of the goods. It is not in dispute before this Court that the claimant was travelling in the offending lorry as owner of goods. If a person engages a lorry to transport his goods from one place to another and if he was traveling with those goods in the capacity of owner of goods, such person can be said to be covered by policy issued by the insurance company as a third party. In view of the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited’s case (supra), it is held that though the owner of the goods traveling in a goods vehicle is not covered under the insurance policy after 14.11.1994 subsequent to amendment of Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act, even the owner of the goods traveling in a goods vehicle is considered as third party covered under the policy. 15. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J APRIL 01, 2011 YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.NOS. 2051 AND 1367 OF 2006 April 01, 2011 [1] 2010- ACJ-1548