THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2767 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Questioning award dated 24.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.No.734 of 2004, the Insurance Company filed this appeal. There is no dispute about factum of accident and about driver of the accident vehicle driving the same in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. The first respondent/claimant/injured claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the lower Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.74,500/- to him as compensation. The appellant contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as per Ex.B1 Insurance Policy as the injured was unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle namely Auto trolley bearing No. AP 24 V 1403. On the other hand, the first respondent/claimant/injured contends that at the time of accident he was travelling in the accident vehicle as owner of goods being transported in it. In case the claimant is owner of goods being transported in the accident goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its legal liability in view of Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”). Therefore, the entire dispute revolves on evidence of PW1 who is the injured. Ex.B2 Investigator’s Report filed by the Insurance Company is not worth the paper on it was scribbled. There is no place for any investigation under the Act. Neither investigation made by the alleged Investigator is statutory nor legal. Ex.B2 Investigator’s Report is not proved by examining the Investigator. Even if examined, evidence of such Investigator and his report Ex.B2 are hit by rule of prohibition of hearsay evidence. According to PW1, he was a mason working on daily wages of Rs.150/- and he was carrying house hold articles in the accident vehicle. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the injured was only carrying luggage and was not transporting goods in the accident vehicle. There is no indication in the evidence of PW1 much less in cross examination of PW1 made by the Insurance advocate in the lower Tribunal that the injured was only carrying a bag of articles or was carrying the entire goods being transported in the auto trolley. There is also no evidence put forth that goods being transported in the auto trolley at the time of accident belonged to some other person than PW1. Having regard to evidence placed before the lower Tribunal, it was rightly found by the lower Tribunal that the injured was travelling in the accident vehicle as owner of goods being transported in the auto trolley. Coming to quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that it is just compensation having regard to nature of injuries sustained by the injured. As per Ex.A3 Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Government Civil Hospital, Suryapet, the injured sustained three fractures. The lower Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.50,000/- for all the said fracture injuries. The said amount is just and reasonable. Even though the injured filed 23 medical bills covered by Ex.A4 for total sum of Rs.38,136/-, the lower Tribunal did not grant entire amount as compensation, but granted Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and transport. The said amount is also just and reasonable. The lower Tribunal awarded another sum of Rs.4500/- towards loss of income for three months. Since the injured suffered three fracture injuries, the said amount of Rs.4500/- towards loss of income for three months is also reasonable. Thus I do not find any merits in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 29.11.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2767 of 2007 Dt. 29.11.2010