The insurer is not liable for compensation to unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle according to the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 6.11.2000 in O.P. No. 649 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Second Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000 under 'no fault liability' with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

2. The appellant herein filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the injury sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7.1.1995. According to him, on that day, he boarded the lorry bearing No. AP 26 - T 5338 along with his sewing machine at Kavarpet to go to Sullurpet and on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the vehicle overturned resulting in multiple injuries including a crush injury on the left hand of the claimant and that his left thumb was amputated and thereby he became permanently disabled. It is further pleaded that on account of the permanent disability, he lost his earning capacity as tailor.

3. The owner of the lorry, respondent No. 1, remained ex parte.

4. The insurer, respondent No. 2, filed a counter opposing the claim and denying its liability to pay compensation.

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 26 - T 5338 by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
Additional issue:
Whether the vehicle in question belongs to respondent No. 1 and stood insured with insurance company, respondent No. 2 by the date of accident and, if so, whether the policy covers the risk of the petitioner?

6. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exhs. A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW 1 was examined and copy of the policy, Exh. B1, was marked on behalf of the respondents.

7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal gave a finding on issue No. 1 that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that it was an act of God or vis major. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards 'no fault liability'. On additional issue, the Tribunal held that the risk of the claimant is covered by the policy, Exh. B1, as the claimant was the owner of goods. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount of Rs. 25,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from date of petition.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant preferred the present appeal.

9. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents are heard. Records are perused.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was due to vis major and that the driver of the lorry was not responsible. She further contended that the Tribunal ought to have estimated and awarded compensation under fault liability having due regard to the fact that the claimant sustained amputation of right thumb, which is shown to be a permanent disability to the extent of 60 per cent, as per the disability certificate, Exh. A3.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contended that the claimant was travelling in the lorry as unauthorised passenger and, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation, as the risk in respect of such persons is not covered by the policy, Exh. B1.

12. The case of the claimant is that he was travelling in the lorry No. AP 26