JUDGMENT :- This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award, dated 1.10.200 I, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, in OP No.262/99. The second respondent-insurance company is the appellant herein. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. On 15.6.1998 at about 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner was traveling on Tirupathi to Chandragiri main road in Jeep bearing No. PY 01 E 1158, the first respondent's driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner, on account of which, the Jeep turned turtle, and the petitioner received injuries. A case is Crime No.102/98 under Section 337 IPC was registered by Chandragiri Police. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1 ,00,000/-. A counter is filed by the second respondent-insurance company denying the allegations in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether RI's driver drove the jeep bearing No. PY 01 E 1158 rashly and negligently on Chandragiri- Tirupathi road near Thondawada on 15.6.1998 at 10.30 a.m., and caused grievous injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for ? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of he respondents, RW1 was examined and EX.B1 insurance policy was marked. 4. On the basis of the evidence recorded, the learned Trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.31 ,000/-. 5. Two questions would arise for consideration in this appeal. The first one is whether the compensation awarded is appropriate and the second one is whether the insurance company-the appellant is not liable. 6. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to PW I, the petitioner has suffered fracture to his left leg, he vomitted blood, he remained in the hospital for 18 days and spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for treatment. Ex.A3, the wound certificate, shows that the injuries suffered by the petitioner are grievous in nature. That means, the petitioner suffered fracture to his left foot. As such, the compensation of Rs.31,000/- awarded cannot be said to be high. Apart from spending some money for treatment, he must have suffered pain, he must have been out, of work for at least some time and he would have suffered some permanent disability on account of the fracture. 7. As such, the compensation of Rs.31,000/- awarded cannot be said to be high. Apart from spending some money for treatment, he must have suffered pain, he must have been out, of work for at least some time and he would have suffered some permanent disability on account of the fracture. 7. The second question is about the liability of the insurance company. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was not a paid passenger and that he was a gratuitous passenger. As such, the insurance company is not liable. PW1, the petitioner, in his evidence has deposed that at the time of accident, he was going along with his relatives to Kanipakam. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that the transport vehicle was taken on hire by passengers that means, he was traveled in the .vehicle that was taken by him and he was not a gratuitous passenger. RWI examined on behalf of the insurance company also did not speak anything about the same, i.e., about the petitioner being a gratuitous passenger. In the re-examination of R WI, it is elicited that the petitioner traveled as a paid passenger. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner traveled as a paid passenger and that he was only a gratuitous passenger. 8. In view of the above factual position, it cannot be held that the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger. That being the case, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below. 9. The CMA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.