THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA NO.722 OF 2007 Dated 23rd February, 2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited …Appellant And Uppari Sailu and three others …Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri V.Sambasiva Rao Counsel for respondents 3 and 4: Sri Chilumala Pratap Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: None appeared The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited arises out of award dated 13.11.2006 in MVOP No.572 of 2004 on the file of the learned II- Additional District Judge (FTC)-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy (for short “the Tribunal”). When the deceased Kurma Mallamma was travelling in a tractor from Mooduguntala to Sanjeevaraopet, it has turned turtle resulting in the death of the deceased. Respondents 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, sued respondent No.1 and the appellant for compensation. The Tribunal held that as the deceased was only a labourer travelling in a tractor-trailer, she is not covered by the policy and therefore, the appellant has no liability to pay the compensation. While so holding, the Tribunal directed the appellant to first deposit the amount and later recover the same from the owner of the tractor i.e., respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal having held that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation, however, erred in directing deposit of compensation by it with liberty to recover the same from the owner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bommithi Subbhayamma[1], wherein the Apex Court following the earlier judgments in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223]; National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Challa Bharathamma [(2004) 8 SCC 517]; Pramod Kumar Agarwal v. Mushtari Begum [(2004) 8 SCC 667] and National Insurance Co.Ltd v. V.Chinnamma [(2004) 8 SCC 697] held that in spite of 1994 amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle other than the owner of the goods or his authorised representative whether for hire or reward or otherwise is not covered by the policy of insurance and consequently the insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation. The Supreme Court, however, permitted the claimants to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner. Sri Chilumala Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4-claimants, however, placed before this Court, the later judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Suresh K.K[2], wherein S.B.Sinha, J, who has delivered the judgment in Bommithi Subbhayamma (1 supra), while holding that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation for the death of a coolie while travelling in a tractor, however directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant and realise the same from the owner of the vehicle. This direction was given considering the fact that the claimant was a coolie worker. In this case also the deceased was a coolie and therefore, the said judgment is attracted to the facts of this case. In view of the same, I find no merit in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd February, 2010 vrn [1] (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 243 [2] 2008 (6) ALD 87 (SC)