JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Alok Lal, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. 3. Heard Mr. Rajiv Anand, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 4. This appeal has been filed against judgment and award dated 27.04.2002 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Gumla in M.J.C. Case No. 38 of 1996. 5. The counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant had filed an application for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of head injury sustained by truck No. BPY-8440 and it was mentioned in the petition that the truck was coming from Kolebira to Gumla. The specific case of the claimant was that the claimant was standing for bus and in the meantime, the aforesaid truck came and the driver and the Khalasai of the truck induced the claimant to climb on the truck and when the truck came near the place of occurrence, it over turned and several persons on board received injuries including the claimant. The claimant became unconscious and later on, he was brought to Gumla hospital and thereafter, to R.M.C.H., Ranchi for better treatment . 6. It was also the specific case of the claimant that he remained in Seva Sadan Ranchi for two months under the treatment of Dr. H. P. Narayan, Neurosurgeon and he spent around 25,000/- in his treatment and during his treatment, his son stayed with him and he has suffered mental, physical and economical problems. 7. The specific case of the insurance company, before the learned court below was that the insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation and the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation. 8. The counsel for the appellant further submits that one of the issues which was framed by the learned court below was “whether the applicant was entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom?” 9. He submits that the learned court recorded a finding that the claimant suffered injuries on his head by the truck and had spent money for his treatment. 10. He submits that the learned court recorded a finding that the claimant suffered injuries on his head by the truck and had spent money for his treatment. 10. The counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the coverage period of insurance is concerned, there is no dispute, but there is no question of payment of compensation to the claimant by the insurance company particularly in view of the fact that the truck is meant for carrying goods and not passengers and so far as gratuitous passengers are concerned, the Insurance Policy does not cover any liability on that account. 11. He further submits that even if it is assumed to be correct that the claimant had suffered head injuries and had spent money for his treatment, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with a liability to make payment. He further submits that apart from this aspect of the matter, the claimant had relied upon a medical certificate, which was issued as late as in the year 2001 and the accident had taken place on 28.04.1996. Accordingly, such medical certificate could not have been relied upon by the claimant for the purposes of claiming compensation. 12. He further submits that in order to prove the injury suffered by the claimant, he should have examined the doctor concerned, who had treated him and as the doctor concerned was not examined, therefore, the medical evidence which was led on behalf of the claimant, was not admissible in evidence and accordingly, the same could not have been a basis for awarding compensation to the claimant. He submits that the learned court below has taken the report of the Medical Board of Gumla hospital dated 26.07.2001, which was marked as Exhibit- 3 and the report showed that the claimant was suffering from mental weakness and loss of memory. The counsel submits that this particular document could not have been relied upon by the learned court below for the purposes of assessment of the compensation. 13. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the liability, if any, is that of the owner of the vehicle as the claimant not supposed to travel on a truck to go from one place to another. 14. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court dated 04.03.2007 passed in M.A. No. 104 of 2003 (New India Assurance Company Limited, Gumla Vs. 14. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court dated 04.03.2007 passed in M.A. No. 104 of 2003 (New India Assurance Company Limited, Gumla Vs. Mariam Minz & others”. 15. Counsel for the respondent-claimant, on the other hand, submits that the claimant had suffered injury on account of rash and negligent act of the driver as the truck had toppled down leading to injury of many persons. He submits that a First Information Report was also lodged in that connection and a charge-sheet was also submitted. He submits that these documents were duly exhibited before the learned court below. He further submits that there is no dispute that the claimant had suffered head injury and this has been substantiated not only by the documentary evidences, but also by the oral evidence led on behalf of the claimant and the claimant has also deposed before the learned court below. He has also submitted that a large number of documents by way of medical evidence were produced before the learned court below on behalf of the claimant and all the exhibits were marked without any objection on the part of any of the parties. 16. He further submits that so far as the report which is dated 26.07.2001 is concerned, the same only indicates the present physical and mental condition of the claimant and nothing more, but there are large number of documents relating to his treatment by the various doctors and purchases made for the purposes of medicines as well as the various medical examinations, which have been carried out upon the body of the claimant. He submits that in such circumstances, the learned court below has rightly found that the claimant has spent at least 25,000/- for his treatment and over and above that, a further sum has been awarded by the learned court below on account of the sufferings, which the claimant has undergone, on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck. 17. He further submits that in such circumstances, he is only concerned with the money for the loss and damage suffered by the claimant and he is not concerned as to whether the insurance company has to pay the amount or the owner of the vehicle has to pay the amount. 18. 17. He further submits that in such circumstances, he is only concerned with the money for the loss and damage suffered by the claimant and he is not concerned as to whether the insurance company has to pay the amount or the owner of the vehicle has to pay the amount. 18. Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the truck submits that the claimant had made specific statement that he boarded the truck on the insistence of the driver and khalasi and no fare was charged from the claimant and under such circumstances, the claimant has not been able to prove his case. He submits that accordingly, no liability can be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. He submits that so far as the medical evidence is concerned, the tribunal could not have relied upon the report dated 26.07.2001, which was at much later time as compared to the date of accident which had taken place on 28.04.1996. He further submits that even if, by any chance, any liability is imposed upon the owner of the vehicle, there is no question of payment of interest as the liability was fixed upon the insurance company by the learned court below and no liability whatsoever was fixed upon the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, there was no occasion for the owner of the vehicle to file any cross-objection or cross-appeal in the instant case and if any liability accrues upon the owner of the vehicle in this case, then the liability on account of payment of interest cannot be saddled upon the owner of the vehicle. 19. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no dispute that an accident had taken place on 28.04.1996 with the truck of the respondent no. 2 herein and accordingly, one F.I.R. being Palkot P.S. Case No. 34/96 dated 28.04.1996 was instituted and the F.I.R. has been marked as Exhibit-1. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that several persons had sustained injuries. Further, admittedly the truck was insured with the appellant i.e. the National Insurance Company during the period from 11.06.1995 to 10.06.1996. 20. This Court finds that the claimant had filed his application for compensation of an amount of Rs. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that several persons had sustained injuries. Further, admittedly the truck was insured with the appellant i.e. the National Insurance Company during the period from 11.06.1995 to 10.06.1996. 20. This Court finds that the claimant had filed his application for compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and had not only led evidence that he was travelling on the truck on the date on which the accident had taken place, but had also led evidence that the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver and ultimately, the truck toppled and several persons were injured and the claimant was one of them. He has also led evidence by filing a large number of documents before the learned court below regarding the prescriptions of the doctor and his treatment and also cash memos regarding purchase of medicines, discharge slip from the hospital Seva Sadan, his C.T. Scan report etc. apart from the report of Medical Board dated 26.07.2001 indicating that the claimant was suffering from mental weakness and memory loss. 21. This Court finds that the aforesaid report dated 26.07.2001 is not a document regarding his treatment, rather the same is a document regarding his physical and mental condition as on 26.07.2001 and so far as his treatment etc. is concerned, he has led evidence regarding prescriptions and discharge from the hospital. No argument has been advanced on behalf of the parties in connection with the other medical evidences on record except the medical report dated 26.07.2001. Further, these prescriptions and other medical evidences were marked as exhibits without any objection from any of the parties. 22. This Court finds that there is no doubt that so far as the medical evidence is concerned, the doctor is the best person to adduce evidence in connection with the medical treatment of the person concerned, but non-examination of the doctor is not fatal to a case, particularly when the prescriptions and other documents are exhibited without any objection from any side. Accordingly, this Court finds that non-examination of the doctor in the instant case is not fatal to the claim of the claimant. 23. This Court further finds that so far as the quantum regarding expenses etc. Accordingly, this Court finds that non-examination of the doctor in the instant case is not fatal to the claim of the claimant. 23. This Court further finds that so far as the quantum regarding expenses etc. is concerned, the same has been assessed on the basis of the medical prescriptions and other documents which were produced before the learned court below and accordingly, this Court finds that the learned court below has rightly come to a conclusion that the claimant has spent at least Rs. 25,000/- in his treatment and by basing the evidence on the Medical Board’s report dated 26.07.2001, the learned court below has simply stated that the claimant has not been fully cured. 24. This Court finds that in the judgment passed by this Court in M.A. No. 104 of 2003, it has been held by this Court that admittedly in a goods carrying vehicle, a person is not supposed to travel for going from one place to another and it is also well-settled that if any death or bodily injury is caused to a person while travelling in goods carrying vehicle, the Insurance Company has no liability. In such circumstances, this Court in the said case held that the owner of the vehicle are liable to pay the entire compensation. 25. This Court is of the considered view that in the instant case, the owner has not filed any cross appeal or cross objection challenging the finding arrived at by the learned court below that the injuries was caused to the claimant by the truck admittedly belonging to the owner and accordingly, the finding that the injury was caused by the said truck, is also not in dispute. 26. This Court further finds that as the injury by the truck is not in dispute, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation when the person was admittedly travelling in goods carrying vehicle i.e. truck as a passenger. Therefore, this Court finds that the entire liability in the instant case is to be borne by the owner of the truck, who is a respondent in this case and not by the appellant insurance company. 27. In judgment passed by this Court in M.A. No. 104 of 2003 (New India Assurance Company Limited, Gumla Vs. Mariam Minz & others), it has been held in para 8 as follows: “8. 27. In judgment passed by this Court in M.A. No. 104 of 2003 (New India Assurance Company Limited, Gumla Vs. Mariam Minz & others), it has been held in para 8 as follows: “8. Admittedly, tractor is a goods carrying vehicle and a person is not supposed to travel in a tractor from going to one place to another place. It is well settled that if any death or bodily injury is caused to a person while traveling in the goods carrying vehicle, the Insurance Company has no liability. I, therefore, hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent- owners are liable to pay entire compensation.” 28. This Court finds that the aforesaid judgment fully applies to the facts of this case. 29. So far as the objection of the owner of the truck, that the truck driver and the khalasi have not been made party, this Court finds that this submission has no bearing in the matter in view of the fact that admittedly the driver and the khalasi were employed by the owner of the truck and the accident had taken place by rash and negligent act of the driver whereby the truck itself had toppled causing bodily injury to several persons including the respondent- claimant. Accordingly, the aforesaid technical objection does not help the owner of the truck in any manner whatsoever. 30. Further, so far as the liability on account of interest is concerned, which has been argued on behalf of the respondent- owner, that the same cannot be saddled upon the respondent- owner, the same is also rejected in view of the fact that when the primary liability is fastened upon the owner, the owner cannot run away from making payment of interest on the liability. As this Court has held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant, therefore, there is no question of payment of any interest by the insurance company. 31. As this Court has held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant, therefore, there is no question of payment of any interest by the insurance company. 31. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this appeal is hereby allowed, the liability of the appellant is set-aside and the respondent – owner of the truck, is directed to bear the entire liability which has been assessed by the learned court below along with interest thereon as mentioned in the impugned judgment which should be paid to the claimant within a period of six months with up-to-date interest as per award failing which it will be open to the claimant to recover the award amount from the owner of the truck through the process of Court. 32. Statutory deposit is directed to be released in favour of the appellant.