JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.2085/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam is the appellant. The respondents in the claim petition arethe respondents in the appeal.

2. The facts in brief in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are on 2.10.2005 while the appellant was accompanying the goods in a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-4E 4869 driven by the 1st respondent through Mundamala – Uriyappadi road, while they reached the Mundamala junction, the lorry hit a stay wire attached to an electric post. The appellant was thrown on to the road and sustained serious injuries. The lorry was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The additional 4th respondent is the subsequent transferee of the lorry. The appellant was treated at the Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla from 20.10.2005 to 14.11.2005 and thereafter, at the Chest Hospital, Kozhikode from 25.11.2005 to 06.12.2005. The appellant was a Headload worker and Broker attached to the CITU Nedumkunnam and was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant sustained serious injuries and claimed compensation from the respondents, which he quantified at Rs.7,46,000/-, but limited to Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex-parte.

4. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting that the lorry was covered by a valid insurance policy. However, it was contended that the appellant was a gratuitous passenger in the lorry and no additional premium was collected from the owner to cover the liability of a gratuitous passenger. The age, income and occupation of the appellant was also denied. The 3rd respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed as against it.

5. The appellant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked through him in evidence. The 3rd respondent produced and marked Ext.B1 – copy of the insurance policy.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the appellant an amount of Rs.1,61,489/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs of Rs.3,000/-. The 3rd respondent was exonerated of its liability to indemnify the 2nd respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the exoneration of the 3rd respondent of its alleged liability to pay compensation to the appellant and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

8. Heard Sri.M.P. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.Arun Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent – insurance companty.

9. The questions that emanate for consideration in this appeal are:

(i) Whether the exoneration of the liability of the 3rd respondent is sustainable in law; and (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?

10. The version of the appellant in Ext.A17 F.I.S, recorded by the Koyipuram Police Station on the next day after the accident, is that, on 02.10.2005 while the appellant was travelling in the lorry along with Mohanan Pillai – the owner of the timber – who had authorised the appellant to purchase the timber on his behalf, the accident occured· Based on Ext.A17 F.I.S, Ext.A1 F.I.R was registered and, thereafter, Ext.A2 charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta.

11. In the claim petition also, the specific case of the appellant was that he travelled in the cabin of the lorry accompanying the timber, and the vehicle hit the stay wire of an electric post causing injuries to him.

11. The defence of the 3rd respondent was that the appellant was a gratuitious passenger and hence was not covered by Ext.B1 'Act only Policy'.

12. Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty strenuously argued that, as the appellant was an authorised representative of Mohanan Pillai, he was covered b