Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/insurance company.

2. This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the award dated 31.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge(Fast Tract Court), Ananthapur at Gooty in O.P.No.217 of 1995.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-on account of the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident occurred on 05.04.1995 while working in tractor trailer bearing No.AP 02 4864 as hamali as the said vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. There is no dispute about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. There is also no dispute about the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The injury sustained by the injured to the right leg resulted in amputation of the right leg below the knee. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was owned by the first respondent and was insured validly with the second respondent on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal after making enquiry into the claim awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,400/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The learned Tribunal granted compensation holding that the first respondent/owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation and the second respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation since the appellant/claimant was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle.

4. The award is challenged on two grounds by the claimant viz. (1) that the learned Tribunal contrary to the evidence on record held that the second respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and the said finding is liable to be set aside and (2) the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is very low, has not been properly computed and it requires to be enhanced in this appeal.

5. The claimant specifically contended in the claim petition that he was working as hamali on the tractor and trailer which involved in the accident. His version is that on the date of accident while he was working as hamali for the purpose of loading and unloading sand and while he was travelling in the vehicle for the said purpose, the vehicle turned turtle and he received injuries.

6. On the other hand, it was contended by the second respondent/insurance company that the appellant was not travelling as a hamali in the offending vehicle at the relevant time. But, he was travelling therein as unauthorized passenger and as such, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle since carrying passengers in the tractor and trailer is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. Before the learned Tribunal, PWs.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A.1 to A7 were marked. Whereas, on behalf of the second respondent, the Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and Exs.B.1 to

B.5 were marked.

8. PW.1, the claimant stated in his evidence before the learned Tribunal that after unloading the sand at Yadiki village while he and others were returning on the tractor and trailer, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, he and other hamalies in the tractor fell down, he received crush injury to the right leg which ultimately resulted in the amputation of the right leg below the knee.

9. PW.2, a witness examined on behalf of the claimant, who is no other than the son of another injured in the same accident stated in his deposition that his father was also working as hamali in the said tractor just like the claimant. PW.3 deposed before the Tribunal that he and others were working as hamalies in the tractor and they witnessed the accident, while they were returning in the said tractor after unloading the san