The main legal point established in the judgment is that the risk of the claimant was not covered under the insurance policy, as the claimant was not a paid passenger and had not engaged the truck for transportation.

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Present appeal has been fled by the original respondent No.3 - Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1 and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in M.A.C.P. No.87 of 2013, dated 11-01-2018, thereby holding the present appellant liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally with original respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The factual matrix leading to the appeal are ;

That the original claimant i. e. present respondent No.1 fled the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation on account of injury sustained by him in a vehicular accident. He contended that, he had gone to BhandarKavta Dist. Solapur for sugarcane cutting work, in the jurisdiction of Lok Mangal Sugar Factory, for the crushing season of 2011. After the season was over, he and other villagers along with their bulls and articles were returning to their village in Truck bearing No.MH-04/BG3482. When they were in the Shirapur Dhumal shivar on Rajuri to Raimoha road on 22-05-2011, at about 07.00 a.m., due to the rashness and negligence in the driving of the respondent No.2 of the said truck, the said truck turned turtle and fell into the ditch by the side of the road. The said accident had taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of respondent No.2. Claimant sustained serious injuries like fracture to his left humerus and other parts of the body. All the eight persons and one bull travelling from the said truck were injured. The claimant was taken to Civil Hospital, Beed, where he was treated till 25-05-2011. Thereafter, he was again admitted in Saibaba Hospital, Beed on 02-09-2011 and discharged on 17-09-2011. He was thereafter examined by the Orthopedic Board of District Hospital, Beed for the disability, and it has been opined that, he has sustained permanent physical disability to the extent of 10 %. It is stated that, the claimant is an agriculturist and he owns 2 Acres of land which he used to cultivate personally by attending the crushing season of the sugarcane at various places. He used to earn Rs.500/- per day during the season. Average income of the claimant was not less than Rs.5000/- per month. Now he cannot work as before as his left hand is almost crippled. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.12,15,000/-, but restricted the same for the purpose of Court fee to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said truck was owned by respondent No.1 and it was duly insured with respondent No.3 on the date of the accident.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have fled joint written statement and admitted that, the claimant and other injured persons with their articles and bulls were travelling from the truck owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2. It has been further contended that, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Averments regarding negligence on the part of respondent No.2 has been denied. It is stated that, the accident took place due to the ''Act of God.''

4. Respondent No.3 fled separate written statement and denied all the averments except the fact that the truck owned by respondent No.1 was insured with it on the date of the accident. It has been contended that, the driver of the truck was not holding valid and efective driving licence to drive the said truck. So also the truck was not holding valid permit and ftness certifcate. Respondent No.1 has committed breach of terms of policy as he allowed the claimant and others to travel as passengers from the goods vehicle whose risk was not covered under the policy. The Insurance Company, therefore, claimed exoneration.

5. After framing of issues, all the parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of respondent No.2. Claimant has sufered permanent physical disability due to