THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO MACMA NOS.1518 & 1521 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both appeals arise out of a common judgment in O.P.Nos.608 and 609 of 2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda whereunder the compensation, for the death of the persons who are travelling in a DCM Van bearing No.AP 16V-1106 on 21-12-1998 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, was granted. The allegations in the petition goes to show that the deceased persons were working as Village Servants and they have paid the fare charges to the owner of the DCM Van and consequently they died due to the incident. The dependents of the deceased persons claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in O.P.No.608 of 2000 and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in O.P.No.609 of 2000. The appellant who is the Insurance Company opposed the application contending that there is no liability and the deceased persons travelling in a goods vehicle and the liability is not fastened as they are unauthorized passengers. On the basis of the above contentions, the lower tribunal has conducted the trial and on behalf of the petitioners PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the respondents RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1. After considering the evidence on record, the lower tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,37,200/- in O.P.No.608 of 2000 and a sum of Rs.1,92,400/- was granted in O.P.No.609 of 2000. The only contention which has been raised by the appellant herein is that in view of the admitted fact that DCM van was a goods vehicle and they were travelling as passengers after paying the money, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. There is no dispute about the principle of law in view of the judgment in New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani & Others([1]) that a person travelling in a goods vehicle is a gratuitous passenger and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, in this case as per the orders of this Court, half of the amount has been directed to be paid by the appellant and the same was deposited and withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the liability for the balance of the amount shall be only against the owner of the vehicle and the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the amount already paid. With the above modification, the appeals are allowed in part. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 01-08-2011 TSNR [1] 2003 ACJ 1