JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for appellant/claimant and Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is directed by the claimant against the order and decree dated 22.11.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.365/2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl.District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The appellant/claimant is the injured in the motor vehicle accident. He filed claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident.

5. The case of the claimant is that he is aged 19 years, working as Hamali and earning Rs.100/- every day; and on 16.10.2003 at about 04.30 p.m. the claimant was returning from Kalyandurga to his village Narasapuram in a tractor bearing No. AP 02 F 8204 (offending vehicle) along with others; the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; the tractor turned turtle; the claimant and others travelling in the tractor fell down and sustained grievous injuries; the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kalyandurg; later he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur for better management; the clamant spent Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses; the claimant became a disabled person on account of the injuries suffered in the accident; police registered a case in Cr.No.48/2004 of Beluguppa Police Station for the offence punishable U/secs.337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed counter and additional counter, contending that the claimant did not present in the crime vehicle, nor suffered any injury; the claimant received some amount from the 1st respondent and issued receipt acknowledging receipt of the compensation; as the matter was already settled, the claimant is not entitled to seek further compensation.

7. The 2nd respondent/insurer of the vehicle i.e., Insurance Company filed counter and additional counter, contended that the offending vehicle shall be used for agriculture purposes as per permit; the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms of the permit and policy also; the claimant never travelled as Hamali in the offending vehicle; the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured i.e., owner of the offending vehicle.

8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issue for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 16.10.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No. AP 02F 8204 by its driver, turtle the tractor and caused injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what amount and form which respondent?

3. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

1. Whether the petitioner received any amount from the 1st respondent towards full and final settlement or not?

9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, five witnesses were examined as P.Ws-1 to 5 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7 respectively. One witness was examined by the 2nd respondent as R.W-1 and one document was marked as Ex.B-1.

10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence, found that there is no evidence establishing that the claimant received any amount from the 1st respondent towards compensation. This finding is not challenged either by the owner of the offending vehicle or insurer i.e., Insurance Company.

11. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2 an eye witness to the accident, and also basing on Ex.A-1 copy of FIR and Ex.A-2 copy of police report (charge sheet) found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. This finding is also not challenged either by the insured or insurer