This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 4.5.2004 passed in MOP No.290 of 2001 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short "the Tribunal").

2. Appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Limited was arrayed as the 2nd respondent, while the 1st respondent as the petitioner and the 2nd respondent - owner of lorry bearing Registration No. ADA 8478 as the Ist respondent in OP No.290 of 2001 before the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner laid the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") before the Tribunal for award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in road accident.

5. The fact-situation occurring in the instant case is, that on 19.5.2000, the petitioner boarded lorry bearing Registration No.ADA 8478, along with his bicycle in order to transport it from Tuni to Nakkapalli. When the said lorry reached near Godicherla Kothuru Village, Nakkapalli Mandal on National High-way - 5 Road, at about 10.00 a.m., since the driver of the said lorry driven it in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control due to which, the lorry turned turtle on the road, resulting fracture injury to the left hand and other injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Anakapalle for treatment. Even, the Station House Officer, Nakkapalli Police Station registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2000 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC of his Police Station. He claimed that he incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges and he laid claim for Rs.2,00,000/-.

6. The owner of the lorry arrayed as Ist respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent - Insurer of the lorry, contested the claim, contending that the 1st respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing the petitioner to travel as gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation; that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive; and that the petitioner travelled on the roof of the vehicle, which is prohibited under Rule 273 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules (for short 'the Rules') and, as such, there is contributory negligence on his part, and required the petitioner to prove that the driver of the lorry possessing valid driving licence at the relevant time including the age; income and involvement of the lorry.

7. The Tribunal framed the issues about the responsibility for the accident, and during the inquiry, examined the petitioner as PW1 and exhibited the documents as Exs.A1 to A5 on behalf of the petitioner; whereas, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, one Ch. V. Viswanath was examined and exhibited the documents as Exs.B1 and B2 as to the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation.

8. The Tribunal, found Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner as to the negligence attributed to the driver of the lorry, accounting for accident and resulting injuries to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal did not accede to the stand of the 2nd respondent that there was contributory negligence.

9. On Issue No.4, the Tribunal, though, framed second issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation and if so, to what amount, dealt with the same under Issue No.4. Placing reliance on Ex.A3 Wound Certificate and the evidence of PW 1, who sustained injuries described therein, granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering for two grievous injuries; Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering for three simple injuries; Rs.2,000/- towards actual medical expenses, attendant charges, transport charges and extra nourishment; and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of three months and, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation with interest at 9%