An insurance company is not liable to indemnify for claims involving gratuitous passengers not covered under the policy as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) against the award and decree dated 04.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.166 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

2. The appellant is the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 herein is the claimant and the respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed in the same manner as before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows:

a. On 07.10.2002, while the petitioner and some others were travelling in a lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 1275, belonging to the respondent No.1, from Naidupet to Sri Kalahasthi, when the lorry reached near Singamala Village, as the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control over the lorry and the lorry fell down by the side of the road. Thus, the claimant sustained fracture injuries to his ribs and multiple injuries all over his body. The other inmates also sustained injuries. All the injured were shifted to the Area Hospital, Srikalahasthi for treatment. A case in Crime No.104 of 2002 was registered by the police of Thottembedu Police Station. The claimant was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. But, after the accident, he lost his livelihood as he is unable to work. The claimant has been still taking treatment from private doctor and has been spending huge amount for his treatment. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest and costs.

b. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte

c. The respondent No.2 opposed the petition by filing counter denying that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and the occupation and earnings of the claimant. Further, the averments in the claim petition were denied, while stating that the driver of the lorry violated the terms of the policy of insurance. This respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

d. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant:

On behalf of the respondent No.2, xerox copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B1.

4. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal allowed the petition granting compensation of Rs.42,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs and further holding that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the claimant and that the respondent No.2 is entitled to recover such compensation paid to the claimant from the respondent No.1 without filing a suit. The rest of the claim was dismissed without costs.

5. Aggrieved by the award and decree this appeal was filed by the respondent No.2 / insurance company, mainly on the ground that it is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 since the policy does not cover its liability to a gratuitous passenger travelling in goods vehicle which is a lorry in the present case. Further, the appellant challenged the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest as well.

6. Though the respondent No.1 herein / claimant has engaged an advocate, there is no representation. The notice sent to the respondent No.2 herein has not been returned though it was sent to the same address as given before the Tribunal. Moreover, since the respondent No.2 herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal, a memo dated 29.08.2018 was filed by the appellant that no further notice is necessary to t