The insurance company is liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, but its liability is limited to the extent of one hamalie.

JUDGMENT :

1. This MACMA is preferred by the person Incharge ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, who is arrayed as 2nd respondent in MVOP.No.693 of 2009 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur questioning the order dt.30.04.2012 awarding compensation amount of Rs.36,000/- with proportionate costs to the claimant.

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in MVOP.No.693 of 2009.

3. The claimant filed the claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of MV Act and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident. According to the petitioner, on 13.11.2008, he travelled in a 407 van bearing No.AP-03-V-5279 (hereinafter referred to as an offending vehicle) as Hamali, along with others, after loading Papaya fruits into the vehicle. When they reached Manella cross at about 04.00 PM, the offending vehicle's driver drove it rashly and negligently lost control of it; he applied sudden breaks. Due to this offending vehicle turned turtle and fell on the left side of the road. As a result, he sustained injuries. He got admitted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur. He took treatment as an inpatient for 40 days and underwent surgeries. Doctors inserted steel rods, and he became a permanently disabled person.

4. The 1strespondent remained set exparte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter by submitting that the accident occurred only due to the petitioner's negligence; he was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The offending vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent company, and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a driving license at the time of the accident.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. Before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.A1 to A3, Exs.X1. On behalf of the 2nd respondent RW, 1 got examined, marked Exs.B1 to B3.

6. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, and the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.36,000/- with interest and costs. The liability of the 2nd respondent is restricted to only one highest award (regarding families). The said amount can be distributed among the families/claimants based on the compensation amount awarded to them.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the record.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer submits that in the case of sustaining injuries by the gratuitous passenger in the Motor Vehicle Accident, particularly while travelling in the transport/goods vehicle, the insurer's company is not liable to indemnify the insured. He submits that the goods vehicle cannot carry passengers gratuitously for payment. If the goods vehicle is not permitted by law to carry passengers, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation amount. He also contends that the driver of the insured vehicle is not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the insured vehicle. The driving license had expired on the date of the accident. The 1st respondent was an unauthorized passenger. He did not travel in the vehicle in the capacity of hamali. The insurance policy does not cover the risk of coolie for want of payment of the premium amount. The learned Tribunal awarded an excessive and exorbitant amount of Rs.36,000/- to the 1st respondent.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the findings and observation of the learned Tribunal.

10. Now the points for determination are whether the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the appellant/insurance company and whether the compensation amount aw