HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 930 OF 1999 DATED: 18.09.2009 BETWEEN: National Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant And Mekala Venkateswarlu and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 930 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging the Award dated 19.06.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.70 of 1995. 2. The claim arises before the Tribunal in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation of Rs.40,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal by It’s award dated 19.06.1998 granted an amount of Rs.23,500/. 3. The challenge to the award is: a) As to the liability of the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant, b) the quantum of compensation which is said to be excessive. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The appellant – insurance company seeks to disown the liability on the ground that the claimant – 1st respondent was travelling as unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle viz. lorry bearing No.ADM 7267, permitting passenger to travel in a goods vehicle is prohibited under law and the policy also does not cover the risk of such passengers and the Tribunal erred in holding that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 6. The contention of the appellant – insurance company is that the claimant – 1st respondent is gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. Whereas the version of the claimant is that he was traveling along with foodgrains as owner of the goods, the risk of such passengers is covered under the policy and that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. There is evidence of the claimant, who is examined as PW.1 to the effect that he was traveling along with goods. 7. On the other hand, the appellant insurance company examined it’s D.M as RW1 and marked Ex.B.1, copy of policy. However, RW1 is not a witness regarding traveling of the claimant in the lorry and he only spoke to the terms of the policy. Thus, there is no material placed by the insurance company showing that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger, even though, the undisputed fact is that the claimant was traveling in a goods vehicle. 8. The learned trial Court relied upon the decision in AMRIT LAL SOOD AND ANOTHER v SMT KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR AND OTHERS[1] wherein it has been held as follows: “Though statutory insurance does not cover injury suffered by gratuitously traveling passenger/occupant, the use of the word any person in comprehensive insurance (covering third party liability) undoubtedly include an occupant of insured car who was gratuitously travelling in the car,” and ultimately arrived at the decision that the appellant – insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 9. In the instant case, the terms of the policy as evidenced from Ex.B.1, copy of insurance policy is the same as the one before the Apex Court in the decision above referred. Further, though, RW.1 stated in his deposition that owner of the lorry should not allow the passengers to travel in the lorry which is a goods vehicle. Admittedly, in the cross examination that he had no personal knowledge about the manner in which the insured was traveling in the vehicle and he also admitted that as per the terms of the policy the owner of the goods can travel in the lorry. The evidence of the claimant, who is examined as PW.1 clearly indicates that he was traveling in the lorry as the owner of the goods. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the said finding does not require any interference in this appeal. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimant apart from examining himself as PW.1, examined one Dr. M.Rama Mohan Rao, who treated him and marked Ex.A.2, certified copy of the wound certificate and Ex.A.3 certified copy of MLC report. The evidence indicates that claimant sustained fracture to the left thigh bone and two other simple injuries. The evidence of PW.2 discloses that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 13.06.1994 and was discharged on 1.10.1994, he was treated for the fracture, skin grafting and bone grafting were done, that the fracture was healed up, but there is restriction of movement of the knee joint and the disability was assessed at 20%. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,500/- towards purchase of medicines and for the grievous injury and simple injuries Rs.16,000/- i.e. a total sum of Rs.23,500/- as compensation. In my view, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require any interference in this appeal. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the award passed by the Tribunal below is confirmed. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 18.09.2009 kvrm [1] 1998 (3) Supreme 10