JUDGMENT : Battu Devanand, J. This Appeal was filed by the Appellant/Insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the correctness of order, dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram in M.O.V.O.P.No.627 of 2007. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal. 2. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner is resident of Punnam Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, went to Cheepurupalli on 29.05.2006 and after completing his work, himself and some others during their return journey to their village, reached to K. Sambam Village in another auto. Then the petitioner with an intention to go his village board in a Jeep bearing No.AP 31 M 3411 and put one leg into the Jeep and trying to keep another leg into Jeep and in the meanwhile, all of sudden, the driver of the Jeep negligently, speedily, rashly even without observing the petitioner, drove the said Jeep as a result, the petitioner's right leg was crushed. The petitioner sustained fracture on his right knee, left leg ankle and other injuries all over the parts of the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital, Vizianagaram for necessary treatment where the doctor took X-ray and necessary scans, tests, etc., and found injuries on right ankle, left leg fracture and found other injuries. He underwent treatment as in-patient and the doctor conducted necessary operations. The doctor advised him to take bed rest and further operations in future. He was aged 42 years and working as a Mason and used to earn a sum of Rs.100/- per day and he is the bread earner of the entire family and due to the accident, himself and his entire family facing a lot of financial problems and became destitute. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he cannot do his regular duties in future and he became permanently disabled. Therefore, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards special and general damages. 3. The Station House Officer, Garividi Police Station registered the case in Crime No.54 of 2006 under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the Jeep. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the 1st respondent vehicle involved in the accident. 3. The Station House Officer, Garividi Police Station registered the case in Crime No.54 of 2006 under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the Jeep. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the 1st respondent vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner claims that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed their counters denying the averments in the claim petition. 5. During the course of trial, petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-Dr. A. Sri Rama Murthy and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 examined. Ex.B.1-insurance policy copy was marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Jeep bearing No.A.P.31 M 3411. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of special and general damages and an amount of Rs.39,000/- under the head medical expenses. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.79,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, this appeal. 7. Heard Sri Kanaka Sundar Ganta, learned counsel for the appellant/Respondent No.2 and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company submitted that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the injured himself and he was traveling in the Jeep which is the registered and insured as a private car and the copy of the insurance policy which was marked as Ex.B.1 does not cover the risk of the persons being carried in the said vehicle. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability when the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also provisions of law. 9. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability when the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also provisions of law. 9. On the other hand, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner contends that except examining the employee of the insurance company as R.W.1, the insurance company did not adduce any satisfactory evidence to prove the violations, if any, of the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the 1st respondent as owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offended Jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even otherwise also as the petitioner was not fully boarded the Jeep, and as such, he can be treated as a third party. 10. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner-claimant or not? 11. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and on perusing the material available on record, it appears that the copy of the insurance policy which was marked as Ex.B.1 clearly shows that the policy is only an Act policy and it is clear that no extra premium has been paid to cover the passengers who traveled in the Jeep. The counsel for respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2. The P.W.1 deposed that with an intention to board the Jeep, he kept one leg into the said Jeep and about to keep his second leg, all of sudden the driver of the said Jeep drove the vehicle negligently and rashly without observing him. As a result of the same, the petitioner sustained fracture injury on his right knee and left leg ankle and other injuries all over his body. If the evidence of PW.1 is examined along with Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 Charge sheet, it is categorically established that the petitioner not fully boarded the Jeep. As such, the petitioner cannot be treated as a passenger traveling in the Jeep. As such he can be treated as third party to the Ex.B.1 insurance policy. 12. If the evidence of PW.1 is examined along with Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 Charge sheet, it is categorically established that the petitioner not fully boarded the Jeep. As such, the petitioner cannot be treated as a passenger traveling in the Jeep. As such he can be treated as third party to the Ex.B.1 insurance policy. 12. Besides this, as and when the insurance company contending that the owner of the Jeep violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to prove the violations of the 1st respondent-insured. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except examining the R.W.1, who was the employee of the insurance company, no satisfactory evidence was adduced to substantiate their claim that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the risk is not covered under Ex.B.1 policy. If it is to be accepted that the driver of the Jeep permitted the petitioner-claimant to board the Jeep which is not meant for transportation of passengers, for the fault committed by the driver, the owner of the vehicle is also vicariously liable. As such, it can be construed that there are some violations of the terms and conditions of the policy by the insured, but in the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence adduced by the insurance company, their contention cannot be accepted. As such, in view of the same, appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District v. Kondakotla Saroja and others, (2008) 5 ALD 288 (DB) in which the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the Tribunal below that the insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation for the passengers who traveled in the Jeep which is covered by an Act policy. With great respect there is no any dispute with regard to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the said judgment, but in the light of the particular facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence available on record, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the decree and judgment passed by the Tribunal below is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.