This appeal is filed against the Order, dated 20.02.2002 passed in O.P.No.2503 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The injured claimant is the appellant herein. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.11.2000. After making enquiry into the claim petition, the learned Tribunal dismissed his claim holding that the accident was not as a result of any rash and negligent act of the driver of the water tanker bearing No. APP 5450 and that the same occurred on account of the appellant’s own fault, and therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation. Having arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation, the learned Tribunal below did not go into the question of quantum of compensation.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the second

respondent-insurance company.

4. According to the appellant on 07.11.2000 at about 4.00 pm a water tanker bearing No. APP 5450 belonging to the first respondent came to their locality for supplying drinking water to the residents. Due to some mechanical defect of the valve drinking water could not be drawn from the connection annexed to the tanker and on the request of the inhabitants of the locality and with the permission of the driver of the water tanker, he went on to the top of the tanker and was distributing water to the people who gathered there by filling of the water in the respective containers by taking out directly from the tanker. It is the version of the appellant that such a course was permitted by the driver of the said water tanker and some time thereafter without giving any signal and without observing him, the driver of the water tanker suddenly started the vehicle, due to which he fell down from the top of the water tanker and received injuries to left thigh, abdomen and pelvis. Initially, he was removed to Osmania General Hospital, from there he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital for better treatment and he spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- He claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads.

5. It was the contention of the second respondent insurance company before the tribunal below in the course of its counter that the appellant who was in a drunken state without the permission of the driver of the water tanker went on to the top of the water tanker to fetch water, fell down from there and received injuries. The second respondent-insurance company sought to establish its contention mainly basing on the statement of the appellant recorded by the Head Constable of the Amberpet Police Station according to which the appellant himself said to have stated to the Head Constable that in a drunken state he climbed the water tanker and fell down from the tanker due to his own fault and nobody was responsible for the accident.

6. To prove their respective contentions, the appellant examined himself as PW.1, an eye witness to the accident as PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. Whereas, the second respondent-insurance company examined one of its officials as RW.1 and marked Ex.B.1-copy of the policy of insurance.

7. PW.1-appellant and PW.2-inhabitant of the locality of the appellant where the incident took place had categorically spoken to the fact of the appellant going over the top of the tanker and distributing water to the inhabitants of the locality with the permission of the driver of the water tanker and thereafter, without informing the appellant and without giving any signal, the driver starting the tanker suddenly, as a result of which, the appellant falling down from the tanker and receiving severe injuries. RW1, who is not at all a witness to the accident deposed that the accident occurred not as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the water ta