A. Shankar Narayana, J.

The instant appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which was arrayed as the second respondent in OP No. 205 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, aggrieved of the order, dated 28.12.2004, whereby and where under a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was granted as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner with interest at 9% p.a., on the ground that the petitioner was travelling in a goods vehicle as an unauthorized passenger, requesting to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.06.1997 at about 8.00 A.M., while the petitioner was travelling with his tomato baskets in a lorry bearing registration No. AP-04T-3915, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, the driver had driven it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which, the lorry turned upside down on Piler - Kadapa road near Thimmapuram cross roads, causing injuries to the petitioner. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Piler and from there to SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati, where he took treatment as inpatient for 21 days incurring huge expenditure and even the Station House Officer, K.V. Palle Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 73 of 1997 under Section 338 IPC, against the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, he sought Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'the Act'), with 12% p.a., interest thereon.

4. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed its written statement opposing the claim. It has taken a specific plea that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the first respondent - owner of the lorry violated the terms of the policy in allowing the gratuitous passenger to travel in the said lorry. While reserving its right to seek the defences available under Sections 149 and 170 of the Act, finally requested to dismiss the claim.

5. The Tribunal framed the following three issues about the responsibility for the accident.

"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident to the lorry bearing No. AP-04-T-3915 on 28.06.1997 at about 8.00 A.M. near Thimmapuram cross on Piler - Cuddapah road due to rashand negligent driving of the driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so from whom and to what quantum?

3. To what relief."

6. In order to entitle himself for the compensation, the petitioner, besides examining himself as P.W. 1, has examined one Raja Naik as P.W. 2 and Dr. M. Sanjeeva Rayudu as P.W. 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of the second respondent - Insurance Company, one Vara Kumar was examined as R.W. 1 and marked the copy of insurance policy as Ex. B1.

7. The Tribunal, having deliberated on issue No. 1, in the light of the evidence let in by the petitioner, held it in favour of the petitioner.

8. On issue No. 2, basing on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, so far as determination of compensation is concerned, and relying on Ex. A2-certified copy of wound certificate, but however, on the ground that Ex. A4 - disability certificate was not issued by the competent authority and it was only issued by P.W. 3, excluded it in accepting the permanent disability set up by the petitioner and granted a sum of Rs. 12,500/- for grievous injury, Rs. 6,000/- for six simple injuries, Rs. 6,500/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, thus, making a total amount of Rs. 55,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% p.a.

9. Concerning the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal, while referring to Ex. B