G VENKAT SWAMY GOUD Vs. B ASHOK REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment dated 20.04.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.240 of 2003, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/ claimant seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries received by him was allowed in part by awarding a compensation of Rs.1,15,346/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till realization. In this appeal, the claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 31.08.2002, when he along with others were proceeding towards Kollapur from Peddakothapalli in a jeep bearing No.AP 22B 1623, which is owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, and when the jeep reached the outskirts of Kalwakole village on Hyderabad-Kollapur road, the jeep driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and unable to control the speed, he dashed the stationed tractor bearing No.AP 22 8469, which was alighting on the right side of the road, on account of which, the claimant received fracture injury to the right hand and also fracture to the right knee and head injury and multiple injuries all over his body. Then, he was shifted to Gowri Gopal Appollo Hospital, Kurnool for treatment and subsequently, he was shifted to NIMS for treatment as the injury sustained by him is grievous in nature. In NIMS, his right hand was operated by erecting steel rod, which has to be removed subsequently. According to him, he spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment and medical expenses. By the time of the accident, he was stated to be working as tailor since 15 years by establishing a shop "Raja Tailors" at Kollapur and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and due to the injury to his right hand, he is not able to pursue his tailoring profession in future and as such he sustained permanent disability. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the second respondent - insurance company contended that the present insurance policy is Act policy which covers the driver only and not the claimant, who is a passenger travelled in the insured vehicle, and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kondakotla Saroja (1) 2008 (5) ALT 246 = 2009 ACJ 1127, wherein insurance company was held to be not liable. This Court in the said decision observed as under: