JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an appeal by the claimant against the award of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 502 of 1984 dated 11.3.1991. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was a minor aged about 14 years on the date of accident and a resident of village Kankadapal under Sukinda Police Station in the district of Cuttack. The petitioner was earning Rs. 200/- per month as a washerman working along with his father. It is alleged that on 13.10.1986 at about 8.30 p.m. while he was going with others from Mangalpur towards Tanaka side on the Mangalpur-Tanaka road, the offending Dumper bearing Regn. No. OSC 3792 belonging to opp. party No. 1 and insured with opp. party No. 2 came in high speed from Mangalpur side without blowing horn and suddenly swerved to its left and dashed against the petitioner and some of the pedestrians, who were walking along with him, as a result of the accident the petitioner sustained bleeding injuries on his person and was removed to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. It is alleged that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Dumper and the claimants became permanently disabled to do any work for earning his livelihood. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 as opposite parties contested the case and filed their separate written statements denying the liabilities and refuting the facts alleged in the petition. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 that the owner of the Dumper, the vehicle, was being driven in a normal speed and when a group of persons came in front, the driver applied sudden brake with a view to save the pedestrians, but the vehicle overturned resulting in the injuries to some occupants of the vehicle including the deceased-helper. The vehicle has been validly incureed with Respondent No. 2 valid from 7.1.1986 to 6.1.1987 covering the date of accident. Respondent No. 2 took the plea that the injured-claimant was not a pedestrian but was a passenger for hire and hence opposite party No. 2 will not be liable to indemnify the compensation, if any, awarded in favour of the claimant. 4. Respondent No. 2 took the plea that the injured-claimant was not a pedestrian but was a passenger for hire and hence opposite party No. 2 will not be liable to indemnify the compensation, if any, awarded in favour of the claimant. 4. The Member, Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record, found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by its driver and that the claimant was its occupant along with some others, as passengers on hire and was not a pedestrian, when the accident took place. On recording such finding the learned Member, Claims Tribunal held that Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the liability by way of compensation and the compensation is payable by the owner of the offending Dumper. However, a compensation of Rs. 3000/-was awarded against the owner of the vehicle Respondent No. 1 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in default the interest payable was to be calculated at 12% per annum. 5. Mr. R.N. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the award passed by the Tribunal, is highly inadequate and the findings are based on surmises and conjectures, inasmuch as award of Rs. 3000/- only for the grievous injury sustained on a youngman of only 14 years is improper and has been awarded abruptly without any discussion and consideration and as such is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was a passenger inside the Dumper, for which the Insurance Company is not liable to cover the liability of the owner is on a wrong premises and without any materials on record. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have been believed the statement of witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that the appellant was a pedestrian and while going on the road along with others sustained the injuries. Mr. Mohanty on the question of compensation submits that the appellant was a washerman earning Rs. 200/- per month and soon after the accident, he was hospitalised for 11 days and his father was to spend Rs. 1, 2 and 3 that the appellant was a pedestrian and while going on the road along with others sustained the injuries. Mr. Mohanty on the question of compensation submits that the appellant was a washerman earning Rs. 200/- per month and soon after the accident, he was hospitalised for 11 days and his father was to spend Rs. 1500/- for his treatment and because of the accident, the claimant has not been able to perform his physical work and therefore, on such consideration, the minimum award ought to have been Rs. 50,000/- as claimed. Mr. M. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, Respondent No. 2 strenuously argued that there is no material on record nor any evidence to hold that the claimant-appellant was a pedestrian on the road and sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Dumper, inasmuch as the finding of the learned Member, Claims Tribunal that the claimant-appellant was an occupant of the vehicle is based on the police records and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and as such there is no reason as to why such finding should be altered. On the quantum of compensation, Mr. Sinha submits that taking into consideration the injuries sustained, even though Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay the compensation, it cannot be said that the award was unusually low in absence of sufficient materials on record. 6. The claimant has been examined as P.W. 1. It is his evidence that when he along with 10 to 11 others were proceeding towards Tatamines from Mangalpur on the road the Dumper came from behind and some persons raised hands to stop that vehicle, but when the driver applied brake, it overturned on the left side of the road, and he assigned injuries on his head, hand and other parts of his body. The vehicle dashed against him. Two others who were coming in that vehicle, expired at the spot. The helper of the truck sustained fracture on his leg. They were removed to the Cuttack Hospital for treatment and he remained hospitalised for 11 days. He was earning his livelihood as washerman and it is his statement that after the accident he is unable to perform his work effectively. The helper of the truck sustained fracture on his leg. They were removed to the Cuttack Hospital for treatment and he remained hospitalised for 11 days. He was earning his livelihood as washerman and it is his statement that after the accident he is unable to perform his work effectively. In cross-examination, he has however stated theft after dashing against him, the truck overturned and he was pressed under the Dala of the Truck. The persons who were in truck were thrown away. P.W. 2 is the father of the injured, but he is not an eye-witness to the accident and/or cause of it, and therefore his evidence so far as the accident is concerned is not relevant. P.W.3 Niranjan Nayak is the helper of the truck. According to him, on 14.10.1986 at about 9 p.m., the Dumper OSC 3792 was coming from Sukihda towards Tatamines, and near village Kusundiha some pedestrians raised their hands to stop the vehicle, but it did not stop. When the pedestrians rushed near the truck, the driver applied sudden breaks, as a result of which the Dumper over-turned and the petitioner, who was one of the pedestrians sustained the injuries. P.W. 3 himself has sustained injuries and has filed another claim application in cross-examination, this witness has stated that he saw the petitioner (claimant) after the accident. He has further stated that the passengers were sitting in the cabin of the driver and invariably people travel in the trucks as there is only two bus services. The passengers paid Re. 1/- each as fare for going to witness Jatra. Interestingly, petitioner Subash was also going to witness Jatra. He has further stated that he did not know who were the other injured persons. According to him, he was working in the Dumper since last two years prior to the date of accident. Normally, they pick up known persons in the truck. P. W.4 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. According to him, after the accident, he found none. But the truck has overturned on the left side of the road. Thereafter, he came to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital. O.P.W. 1 is one Bhramarbara Patra. He has deposed that he was travelling in that vehicle as a passenger from Bambilo to Tatamines to witness opera. According to him, after the accident, he found none. But the truck has overturned on the left side of the road. Thereafter, he came to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital. O.P.W. 1 is one Bhramarbara Patra. He has deposed that he was travelling in that vehicle as a passenger from Bambilo to Tatamines to witness opera. It is his statement that 10 to 15 persons boarded the Dumper and some persons boarded the Dumper at Kubika and Kankadapal. In all, there were 40 persons travelling in the Dumper. He had paid Rs. 2/- to the driver as fair. The vehicle was not in a high speed and it overturned at a turning. He was travelling on the Dala of the vehicle. There was no pedestrian on the road when the vehicle overturned. This witness has named some of persons, who were travelling as co-passengers with him. O.P.W. 2 is the Grama Rakshi, who has stated that on 13.10.1986 there was an accident. This witness has stated that there are about 30 to 35 passengers in the Dumper, the same was overturned at a turning which was visible to him from the place where he was standing. He rushed to the place of occurrence. Many people gathered there when he reached the place of accident. He found that one person had been pressed under the vehicle and the leg of the helper of the vehicle was also pressed under the vehicle and he was screaming. It is his evidence that he ascertained from the spot that the passengers of the Dumper were going to witness Jatra. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that all the passengers of the Dumper had been thrown away when the Dumper overturned. O.P.W. 3 is the Development Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company, O.P.W. 4 is the A.S.I. of Kaliapani Outpost under Sukinda Police Station. It is his evidence that on 14.10.1986 at about 9.30 a.m., the Grama Rakshi lodged the F.I.R. regarding the accident and he took up investigation. According to this witness, the investigation revealed that all the injured persons were travelling in the Dumper as passengers to witness Jatra at Tatamines. O.P.W. 5 Sibanath Mahanta in his evidence has stated that when he was taking a stroll after his food, he found 10 to 12 persons walking on the road. According to this witness, the investigation revealed that all the injured persons were travelling in the Dumper as passengers to witness Jatra at Tatamines. O.P.W. 5 Sibanath Mahanta in his evidence has stated that when he was taking a stroll after his food, he found 10 to 12 persons walking on the road. These persons raised their hands and when the driver applied the brake, the vehicle overturned. In cross-examination, he has also stated that about 20 to 25 persons were travelling in the truck. O.P.W. No. 6 is a passenger in the truck carrying his vegetables to Tatamines. According to him 4 to 5 other vegetable dealers boarded the truck to Mangalpur. The vehicle was in a high speed and when 15 to, 20 pedestrians raised their hands to stop the truck, the driver applied sudden brake, as a result of which, the truck overturned on the left side. As a result of the accident some of the pedestrians and some of the occupants of the truck were injured. According to him, he sustained injuries on his forehead and his right leg, but he has not filed any claim case for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 7. On going through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses including the evidence of the claimant, I do not find any reason to differ with the finding of the learned Member, Claims Tribunal that the claimant-appellant was a passenger in the offending Dumper. The very case put forth by the claimant that some pedestrians having raised their hands to stop the vehicle, the driver applied sudden brake, as a result of which the vehicle overturned and the very same persons were injured who had raised their hands, is not a believable story. It does not appeal to reasons or even to common sense as to why, if some pedestrians raised their hands to stop the vehicle i.e. the Dumper to travel to a distance, the driver will apply the brake in such a manner to abruptly stop the vehicle then and there resulting in the overturn. Rather, the alternative theory that in a turning, the vehicle being in a high speed, could not be controlled and overturned, is reasonable. In any view of the matter, the evidence of P.Ws. Rather, the alternative theory that in a turning, the vehicle being in a high speed, could not be controlled and overturned, is reasonable. In any view of the matter, the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 6 to the effect that, pedestrians having raised their hands, the driver applied the sudden brake and that the vehicle overturned, do not inspire confidence. The evidence, gist of which has been earlier noticed are conflicting and contradictory inasmuch as evidence itself suggest that the driver was driving the Dumper in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence of the Grama Rakshi (O.P.W. 2), the A.S.I. who conducted the investigation (O.P.W. 4) and O.P.W. 1, a co-passenger pointedly lead to the conclusion that there were no pedestrians on the road when the accident took place and the injured persons were the occupants of the Dumper either as helper coolies, labourers or passengers for hire. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck and that the injured persons excluding the helper etc. were passengers for reward. That learned Member, Claims Tribunal, has rightly held that the Insurance Company does not cover the liability of the owner of a goods vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward and as such the owner is liable to pay compensation etc. to the injured persons. 8. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, it is in evidence that the appellant was removed to the Tatamines Hospital and thereafter to that S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and was treated for some days and the father of the claimant has spent some amount for his treatment. The claimant has produced the Discharge Certificate from the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, which is available on record indicating that Subash Sethi was admitted to the hospital on 14.10.1986 and was discharged therefrom on 24.10.1986 and he sustained head injury etc. The Discharge Certificate is dated 24.10.1986. The claimant has also produced an outdoor ticket dated 28.12.1987 indicating same treatment for the head injury etc. The Discharge Certificate is dated 24.10.1986. The claimant has also produced an outdoor ticket dated 28.12.1987 indicating same treatment for the head injury etc. The learned Member, Claims Tribunal has not however discussed anything about the injuries, treatment and the admission and discharge of the claimant from the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital to come to a finding that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3000/-. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance the award of compensation and fixed a sum of Rs. 6,500/- as just and reasonable compensation for the injury sustained by him in the accident to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1 to the claimant-appellant. The appellant shall also be entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date of application till payment. The award of the Member, Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack is modified to the extent indicated above. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred) instead of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to be paid by the owner, opp. party No. 1 and the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till payment. The award of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 502 of 1986 stands modified accordingly.