HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1682 of 2000 AND C.M.A. (SR) NO.71504 of 1996 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Since both the appeals arose out of the same accident and the appellant-insurance company in both the appeals is one and the same, I deem it proper to dispose of both the appeals by way of the following common judgment. C.M.A.No.1682 of 2000 is filed against the order, dated 18.02.1997 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy District in O.P.No.377 of 1992. C.M.A. (SR) No. 71504 of 1996 is filed against the order, dated 10302.1996 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy District in O.P.No.379 of 1992 whereunder the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit directing the appellant-insurance company and the owner of the vehicle to pay the same jointly and severally. Both the appeals are filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Nizamabad, which is the second respondent before the Tribunal below. Challenge to the awards by the appellant is as to its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company as well as the counsel appearing for the respondents. The respondents in C.M.A.No.1682 of 2000 filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal below for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Peer Ahmed, who is the husband of the second respondent in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.03.1992. Against the said claim, the learned Tribunal passed an award in favour of the respondents 2 to 6 for an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment holding that the 7th respondent, the owner of the lorry bearing No. AAJ 9417, which was involved in the accident and the appellant with which the said vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. It was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that since the injured persons were traveling as unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, not liable to pay compensation as it amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy which was negatived by the learned Tribunal holding that the injured persons were traveling in the goods vehicle with their goods viz. the fruits and hence, the appellant shall indemnify the owner of the accident vehicle. The said finding is assailed in the present appeals and it has been contended that the evidence does not disclose that the claimants in both the appeals were traveling as the owner of the goods, even otherwise, such a risk is not covered either under the policy or under the Act, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation. There is any amount of force in the contention urged on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that every person traveling in a goods vehicle with some luggage cannot be termed as owner of the goods. Here, it is not the case that the vehicle itself was engaged to carry the goods belonging to the deceased. The deceased boarded the lorry along with some luggage containing fruits and the said fact does not bring the deceased within the purview of the owner of the goods. Undoubtedly, he is an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle, though incidentally he might be carrying some luggage with him. After the Judgment in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v ASHA RANI[1] which over ruled the decision in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. SATPAL SINGH[2] the law is well settled that travel of passengers is prohibited in a goods vehicle and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in relation to the risk of gratuitous passenger traveling in the goods vehicle. Therefore, the tribunal had fallen into error in considering the deceased as the owner of the goods and also fastening the liability on the insurance company. The said finding is therefore, set aside in this appeal and it is held that the appellant – insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle is only liable to pay compensation to the claimants/respondents. However, the next question requires consideration is as to whether in view of the fact that the respondents/claimants in both the appeals hail from lowest strata of society, can the insurance company be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the accident vehicle. Following the ratio laid down in NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY v BALJIT KAUR[3] the Supreme Court held in PRAMOD KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS v SMT MUSHTARI BEGUM AND OTHERS[4] that though the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the award in case of death of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal has to be initially paid by the insurance company and later it can be recovered from the owner by initiating execution proceedings without filing any regular suit. Recently in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v KUSUM AND OTHERS[5] the Supreme Court while dealing with execution proceedings initiated by the insurance company against the owner of the vehicle after satisfying the award as per the directions of the Tribunal held that such a direction has been issued by the Tribunal in exercise of its inherent power and it would be a travesty of justice which was directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree and that the insurance company is not required to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount as erroneously held by forums below. Following the ratio laid down in the judgments above referred, though the appellant – insurance company is not liable to indemnify the award in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle, it is directed to satisfy the award in favour of the respondents/claimants in both the appeals and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle without instituting a separate civil suit for recovery of the amount. With the above direction, both the appeals are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date: 19.03.2010 kvrm [1] 2003(2) SCC 223 [2] (2001)1SCC 237 [3] (2004)2 SCC 1 [4] AIR 2004 SC 4360 [5] (2009)8 SCC 377