HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1539 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimants against the order in O.P.No.35 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, questioning the exoneration of the liability of the Insurance Company and quantum of compensation. The petitioners are wife, son and mother of the deceased Ramchandra Reddy, who died in a motor accident. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, on 25.06.1993 the deceased Ramchandra Reddy, who was said to be Sarpanch of the village, went to attend the Meeting of Congress Party at Narsapur and to get some goods and while coming in the Tata Van bearing No. AP 16 T 4818 due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver, the van turned turtle, as a result of which, the deceased received multiple injuries and died. The deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is Insurance-Company and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioners to strict proof of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and nature of the injuries. The deceased was travelling as a passenger in a Goods Vehicle and consequently he is a gratuitous passenger and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and taking his age as ‘50’ years arrived at the compensation of Rs.2,60,760/-. 3. So far as the assessment of the compensation is concerned, I do not think that the assessment of the income or the application of the multiplier by the lower Tribunal is incorrect. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the lower Tribunal found that the deceased was travelling in the Goods Vehicle as a passenger and it was also found that the claimants have failed to prove that the vehicle was engaged for transport of the goods. In fact, the allegation in the petition goes to show that the deceased travelled to attend the Party Meeting and he was accompanied by Gunmen, which goes to show that the vehicle of the 1st respondent was used for the purpose of the Meeting. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the vehicle was engaged for transportation of the goods and that the deceased was the owner of the goods travelling in the vehicle. The lower Tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence and the liability of the Insurance Company has been rightly excluded and there is no ground to interfere with the award of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:16.09.2011 INL