1. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in OP No.628/1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, and also for not fastening the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation, the claimant preferred the present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The brief facts relevant for consideration in this appeal are as follows:

The claimant was a resident of Karumitta village in Tada Mandal, Nellore District. He filed claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/-on the ground that on 17-7-1994 at about 5-30 AM, he boarded a lorry bearing registration No. AAW 4169 belonging to the first respondent herein at Bheemulavaripalem check post with a load of one gunny bag of Alwar Gaddas (sweet potatoes) for transporting the same to Sullurpet for the purpose of sale by paying freight charges to the driver of the said lorry. It is stated that on the way near Akkampet, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed hit another lorry which was coming in opposite direction. In view of the aid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his fore head, right ankle and also a fracture in his right thigh. Immediately, he was taken to Madras General Hospital for treatment. Thus he claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/-as compensation inclusive of loss of earnings during the period of his treatment.

3. The first respondent who is shown as owner of the vehicle in the accident remained ex parte. The second respondent-insurance company filed counter admitting that the lorry bearing No. AAW 4149 stood insured with them but however denied the manner in which the accident took place. It is further pleaded that the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as unauthorized passenger, therefore, the insurance policy does not cover his risk. However, they admit that the vehicle was insured with them and the policy was in force at the time of accident.

4. The tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and Exs.A-1and A-2 ie., FIR and charge-sheet held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the vehicle. The said finding remained unchallenged as no appeal has been preferred either by the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company. Further, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.22,700/-as compensation to the claimant to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.

5. In spite of service of notice on respondent No. 1 (owner of the lorry) on 30-11-2003, none entered appearance on his behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company.

6. The short question that arises for consideration in this MACMA is whether the insurer is liable to compensate a person travelling in a goods vehicle (lorry) with couple of bags of goods (sweet potatoes)?

7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant mainly contends that as the policy was in force at the time of accident and as the claimant was travelling in the said goods vehicle as owner of the goods, the insurance policy covers his risk. The learned counsel for the appellant while relying on the judgment of this court in ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., V. PONUGOTI RAMANAMMA (1990 ALT (1) 194) would contend that the said judgment squarely applies to the facts in issue and that the insurance company is liable to compensation.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-insurance company contends that the appellant-claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

9. The claimant who examined himself as P.W.1 deposed that he loaded four gunny bags of sweet potatoes by paying Rs.40/-towards luggage charges to the driver and that he was travelling in the said vehicle as a owner of goods.