H.S. Kempanna, J.

Though this appeal had been listed for admission before us with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, it was taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is by the insurer challenging the liability fastened on them on the ground that the risk of the claimant who is a police constable, being a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle involved in the accident, is not covered under the policy of the insurance issued by the appellant u/s.147 of the M.V. Act 1988.

3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-

The first respondent-claimant instituted claim petition u/s.166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation in respect of the personal injuries which he sustained in a motor accident that took place on 31.1.2000 at about 10.45 p.m. near K. Sathyavara gate situated on Bangalore-Hoskote road involving the lorry bearing Regn. No.CAW 7100 owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant-insurer at the relevant point of time.

It is the case of the claimant that he was aged 31 years, working as a police constable at Nandagudi police station drawing a salary of Rs.4342/-p.m. as on the date of accident.

On 31.1.2000 he along with his colleague constables had been deputed for night beat duty at Pillagumba industrial estate which is situated at some distance from the police station where they were working. On being deputed for night duty as there was no conveyance, they boarded the lorry bearing No.CAW 7100 in order to go to their place of work i.e. Pillagumba Industrial Estate for beat duty. It is their case that after they boarded the lorry on account of it being driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, when it was near K. Sathyavara gate situated on Bangalore-Hoskote road, it went and dashed against an on coming lorry bearing No.CAA 998. On account of the impact the claimant sustained severe injuries on his both legs. He was immediately shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital for treatment. He spent huge money for his treatment, despite the same his both legs below the knee were amputated. On account of amputation of his both legs, he lost his future prospects and also the benefits that he was entitled to by way of encashment of surrender leave. Accordingly, he sought for grant of compensation from the respondents.

After service of notice, the second respondent owner remained absent. Hence, he was placed exparte. The appellant/insurer appeared and contested the claim of the claimant. They contended that the accident in question has not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. They further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident, as such, the owner has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. They also denied all the other averments made by the claimant in his petition and contended that as per accident has not taken place due to the fault of the driver of the lorry, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

The tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 31.01.2000 at about 10.45 p.m. while he was proceeding on work to Pillagumbaa industrial area in the lorry bearing Regn.No.CAW 7100 and while the said lorry was proceeding near K. Sathyavara gate, Hosakote road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver?

2) Whether the Petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount?

3) What order or award?

The claimant in support of his case got himself examined as PW1 and 3 more witnesses including the doctor who had treated him as PWs 2 to 4. He produced in all 16 documents which came to be marked as exhibits P1 to P16. On behalf of the respondents, they did not lead