IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence in driving establishes liability for compensation, even if the injured party is an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. filed by the appellant herein/Insurance Company, is to the Award, dated 24.04.2012, in M.V.O.P. No. 362 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi (‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereunder the Tribunal, partly allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent No. 1 herein/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.02.2006 at about 8.14 a.m.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim petition, is as follows:

On 14.02.2006 at 8.15 a.m. the claimant boarded into a lorry bearing registration No. AP04 T 7900 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the offending vehicle’) along with his tomato load; when the offending vehicle reached 41/8 furlong stone, Kalluru Ghat on Piler-Chittoor road, NH-18, respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Kalluru towards Chittoor side and hit a boulder, as a result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Pileru and from there, he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi. The above accident was reported to police and a case in Crime No. 10 of 2006 of Kalluru Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) against the respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant became crippled person due to the injuries sustained in the accident and unable to attend his normal duties. It is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that the offending vehicle was loaded with cattle feed of rice grain and the respondent No. 1 drove the offending vehicle in a slow and steady manner; the road towards Chittoor is a down gradient ghat road and the respondent No. 1 came to extreme left and applied sudden brakes on observing a ditch in order to avoid collision with the opposite coming lorry; there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. It is further contended that, fifteen members boarded into the offending vehicle in the midway as gratuitous passengers and the claimant is one among them; the claimant is an unauthorized passenger in the good vehicle, therefore, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for inquiry:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident on 14.02.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP04 T 7900 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of inquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he was examined himself as PW-1 and got examined PW-2, who is third-party to the claim petition and PW-3, Orthopedic surgeon and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, the Administrative Officer of Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.B1.

8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, on issue No. 1 held that the pleaded accident occurred d