Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 460 (AP)

Valigandla Subbaraju v. Kalyanapu Subbarao

2004-04-09

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT who received injuries in an accident, while travelling in a lorry bearing No. ABK 8484 belonging to first respondent and insured with second respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, filed a claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondents and examined himself as P. W. 1 and the doctor who treated him as P. W. 2 and marked exhibits A1 to A5. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents, Ex. B1 was marked on behalf of the second respondent, by consent. The Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant, as claimed by him as compensation and exonerated the second respondent from its liability on the ground that appellant was travelling as a gratutous passenger in the lorry. Aggrieved by the exoneration of the second respondent from its liability, claimant preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent. ( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether second respondent is liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellant. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant was travelling with his goods i. e. weaving looms etc. , he cannot be treated as a passenger, but should be treated as a person travelling with his goods in the lorry and so, the second respondent is also liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that, since the F. I. R. , which was registered on a complaint given by the driver of the lorry involved in the accident, shows that the appellant boarded the lorry as a passenger and since there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was travelling with his goods, the Tribunal rightly held that second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellant, by placing strong reliance on NEW INDIA ASSURANCE company LTD Vs. ASHARANI. ASHARANI. ( 5 ) IF the appellant was travelling with his goods, appellant should have produced some material to show that the looms or weaving material, which were allegedly being carried in the lorry, were in fact there in the lorry after the accident. Significantly appellant did not produce the scene of accident panchanama and failed to examine the driver of the lorry who gave Ex. A1 report, to show that he was carrying looms etc, when he boarded the lorry and also did not take steps for production of register in form GVR which has to be maintained in duplicate by all goods vehicles whose previous permit was issued by the RTA of Andhra Pradesh as per Rule 242 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The averments in Ex. A1 show that the lorry involved in the accident started its journey at Madras with a load of parcels and was proceeding towards Vijayawada, and that one person i. e. appellant boarded the lorry at Nellor. Assuming that the appellant was having some articles with him, when he boarded the lorry at nellor, he cannot be treated as a person travelling with his goods in the lorry, because the expression "including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle" in Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the act is meant to cover the owner of the goods, who actually engaged the lorry for transport of his goods from one destination to another destination. If the owners of the parcels, which were loaded at Madras, were travelling in the lorry at the time of accident, they can be treated as the owners of the goods being carried in the lorry travelling with their goods. When a person who boards the lorry, which is carrying a load of goods, in the mid way, with his personal effects or luggage, he can be treated only as a passenger, but not as the owner of goods being carried in the vehicle. In this case, the appellant, admittedly, boarded the lorry, which started at Madras and whose destination was Vijayawada, at eluru. Except his ipsi dixit there is no other material to show that some material which cannot ordinarily be carried in a bus or car was loaded into the lorry by the appellant at Eluru. In this case, the appellant, admittedly, boarded the lorry, which started at Madras and whose destination was Vijayawada, at eluru. Except his ipsi dixit there is no other material to show that some material which cannot ordinarily be carried in a bus or car was loaded into the lorry by the appellant at Eluru. In these circumstances, the Tribunal holding that the appellant was a gratutous passenger and so the insurer of the lorry is not liable cannot be said to be erroneous. So I hold that the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. This point is answered accordingly. ( 6 ) IN view of my findings on the points for consideration, I find no merits in the appeal, and so the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.