This appeal is filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 2.12.2008 passed in OP No. 1173 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.

3. Mr. Mohd. Saleem, the claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 23.11.2006 at about 11.30 p.m., on the outskirts of Pulluru Village within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Manopad, Mahboobnagar District.

4. The claimant's version before the Tribunal is that he was proceeding on the Eicher Van bearing No. AP-28-X-2517, the offending vehicle as owner of the goods from Hyderabad to Kurnool, when the vehicle reached outskirts of Pulluru Village, it met with an accident as the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed tractor-trail or, he received grievous injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool and from there to Area Hospital, Golconda. Stating that he sustained permanent disability, he sought compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs against which the leaned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of re.

5. Since the compensation has been properly computed and the main contention of the insurance company being as to its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, the quantum of compensation does not require any reconsideration in the present appeal and the Tribunal has also on evidence rightly held that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Eicher van and the finding having attained finality also need not be re-examined.

6. The only question requires determination in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal is right in issuing a direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

7. The contention of the claimant that he was travelling in the said van along with load of his vegetables was repelled by the Tribunal below on the ground that in the cross-examination the claimant as PW1 stated that he was working on the offending vehicle under the first respondent and that his work was to proceed with the Eicher Van belonging to the first respondent owner and also that the said vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle. The Tribunal also further took into consideration Exs. A1 and A2 the documents relied upon by the claimant which do not disclose that he was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods. Therefore, the Tribunal below rightly recorded a finding basing on the evidence before it that the claimant was not travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods and as he was allowed to travel in the goods vehicle, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal relying on the judgment in National Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala and others, 2001 ACJ 843, held that the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties, on account of certificate of insurance issued, shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to third party, if there was any breach of conditions of the policy, but, in the first instance it has to pay the compensation to the claimant. The said finding has been challenged in the present appeal. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance companion on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vedwati and others, 2007 ACJ 1043, wherein the Supreme Court held that the owner of the goods vehicle has no statutory responsibility to get his vehicle insured for covering any passenger travelling in the