JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. filed by the appellant herein/Insurance Company, is to the Award, dated 24.04.2012, in M.V.O.P. No. 362 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi (‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereunder the Tribunal, partly allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent No. 1 herein/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.02.2006 at about 8.14 a.m. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim petition, is as follows: On 14.02.2006 at 8.15 a.m. the claimant boarded into a lorry bearing registration No. AP04 T 7900 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the offending vehicle’) along with his tomato load; when the offending vehicle reached 41/8 furlong stone, Kalluru Ghat on Piler-Chittoor road, NH-18, respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Kalluru towards Chittoor side and hit a boulder, as a result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Pileru and from there, he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi. The above accident was reported to police and a case in Crime No. 10 of 2006 of Kalluru Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) against the respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant became crippled person due to the injuries sustained in the accident and unable to attend his normal duties. It is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Hence, the claim petition. 4. Respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the contents of the claim petition. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Hence, the claim petition. 4. Respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that the offending vehicle was loaded with cattle feed of rice grain and the respondent No. 1 drove the offending vehicle in a slow and steady manner; the road towards Chittoor is a down gradient ghat road and the respondent No. 1 came to extreme left and applied sudden brakes on observing a ditch in order to avoid collision with the opposite coming lorry; there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. It is further contended that, fifteen members boarded into the offending vehicle in the midway as gratuitous passengers and the claimant is one among them; the claimant is an unauthorized passenger in the good vehicle, therefore, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for inquiry: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident on 14.02.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP04 T 7900 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. During the course of inquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he was examined himself as PW-1 and got examined PW-2, who is third-party to the claim petition and PW-3, Orthopedic surgeon and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, the Administrative Officer of Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.B1. 8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, on issue No. 1 held that the pleaded accident occurred due negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. In respect of issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed the compensation to a sum of Rs.2,26,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Further, the Tribunal held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. In respect of issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed the compensation to a sum of Rs.2,26,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Further, the Tribunal held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. Felt aggrieved of the said Award, respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the evidence on record would establish that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, and there was breach of policy conditions. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same. 10. Sri T. Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the driver of the offending vehicle holds a valid Heavy Transport Vehicle license at the time of the accident and the vehicle is insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the Award of the Tribunal is on correct lines and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Award. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A. the point for determination is whether the Award, dated 24.04.2012, in M.V.O.P. No. 362 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi, in awarding the compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 12. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident and sustaining of injuries by the claimant in the said accident. To establish the manner of occurrence of the accident, claimant examined himself as PW-1. PW-1, in his evidence deposed that on 14.02.2006 at about 8.15 a.m. he boarded into the offending vehicle and was proceeding from Kalluru side towards Chittoor. He further deposed that the offending vehicle hit a boulder and turned turtle on the road, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. His evidence is further to the effect that the respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the boulder. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 to disbelieve his version that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. His evidence is further to the effect that the respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the boulder. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 to disbelieve his version that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. Except mere formal suggestions, nothing concrete has been elicited during the cross-examination of PW-1. 13. A perusal of evidence of PW-1, it is evident that the deceased sustained deformity of left wrist joint. 14. A perusal of Ex.A1 FIR would reveal that police registered a crime against the respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheeted him alleging that he drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit a boulder, as a result, the claimant, who was travelling in the offending vehicle sustained grievous injuries. The contents of Ex.A1 FIR further revealed that due to the said accident, two of the persons, who were travelling in the said offending vehicle, were succumbed to the injuries and nine of the persons sustained grievous injuries, of which, PW-1 is one of the injured persons. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle. 15. It is not the contention of respondent No. 2/insurance company that the offending vehicle is not insured with them, but it is their contention that the respondent No. 1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and allowed 15 members as gratuitous and unauthorized passengers into the offending vehicle, which is a goods carrying vehicle. Further, it is also the contention of the respondent No. 2/insurer that the offending vehicle was proceeding on NH-18 road towards Chittoor from Pileru side and the said road is a down gradient ghat road; when a lorry came suddenly, as a precaution, the respondent No. 1 came to extreme left side of the road and on seeing a ditch, applied brakes in order to avoid collision with the opposite coming lorry and as such, the offending vehicle turned turtle and accident occurred. 16. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the evidence of RW-1, Administrative Officer of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. 16. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the evidence of RW-1, Administrative Officer of respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. He, in his evidence, deposed that the claimant engaged the offending vehicle at Pileru market and loaded rice and tomatoes in his village. Ex.A4, certified copy of MVI Report discloses that the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the offending vehicle and certified that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. Further, a perusal of Ex.B1-policy, it revealed that the offending vehicle insured with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. No evidence was led by the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company to believe that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, it can be inferred that the subject accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect, but due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2/insurance company that the respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle does not hold valid driving licence. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimant. 17. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of PW-1 that he was doing business and doing cultivation at the time of the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, but it is due to the accident, he became permanently disabled person. PW-3, Orthopaedic Surgeon deposed in his evidence that on 15.02.2006 he examined PW-1 and found grievous injuries on his person. He treated PW-1 by conservative line of management and discharged him on 06.04.2006. The evidence of PW-3 is also to the effect that he issued Ex.A6 disability certificate. He further deposed that there is disfiguration of face of PW-1 due to fracture of orbit. In cross-examination, it is elicited that there is shortening of left hip of PW-1. 18. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.24,000/- per annum and, awarded a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation for damage of clothes, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.6,000/- towards compensation for extra-nourishment and attendant charges. In respect of compensation for treatment, medicine and incidental charges, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. 18. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.24,000/- per annum and, awarded a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation for damage of clothes, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.6,000/- towards compensation for extra-nourishment and attendant charges. In respect of compensation for treatment, medicine and incidental charges, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. In respect of other heads, i.e. pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.1,68,000/- compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability. A perusal of the judgment, the Tribunal, having considered to all the facts, awarded a sum of Rs.2,26,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and proper compensation as are permissible and it is not excessive as contended by the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. 19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 2509 of 2012 is dismissed, confirming the Order and Decree, dated 24.04.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 362 of 2007, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.