THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 08.02.2021 in M.A.T.O.P.No.16 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem (for short “the Tribunal”) .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 09.12.2014, the petitioner engaged a Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No.AP-20-TA-7603 to transport paddy from Charla and while he was returning and when the vehicle reached near Mamidigudem Village, the driver of Bolero Maxi Truck has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to the culvert, after which, it has hit one road side tree at the same speed, due to which the petitioner sustained severe injuries, immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital and that he suffered a lot and incurred huge expenses for his treatment. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as there is a violation in terms and conditions of the policy.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No.AP-20-TA-

7603?

2. Whether the claim petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove his case, petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.5,50,463/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and that the company is not liable to pay any compensation in such cases. He further argued that the tribunal has fixed the liability on the Insurance Company which is not just and proper. He therefore, prayed to exonerate the insurance company from its liability.

11. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in Maxi Truck bearing No.AP-20-TA-7603 at the time of the accident. If so, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief ? 12. Point No.1:

a) PW1 is the injured petitioner, he stated that he engaged the Bolero Maxi Truck to transport the paddy from Charla. It is elicited from him that he is an agriculturist.

b) The contention of the insurance company is that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle, they got examined RW1. It is elicited during the cross examination of RW1 that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. They further got examined RW2 who is a motor vehicle Inspector working at Kothagudem. It is elicited in his evidence that the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-20-TA-7603 is a light goods vehicle and the seating capacity of the said vehicle is two including the driver and that it is not meant for passengers. Thus, it is elicited that the crime vehicle was a transp