THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.4185 of 2008 Date: 19-8-2010 Between The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, 5-9-58/B, Parishram Bhavan, 9th Floor, P.No.1033, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and 1. Rachakonda Anasuya and 4 others … Respondents/Petitioners 6. J.Pental Reddy … Respondent/Respondent No.1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.4185 of 2008 Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. The appeal against respondent No.2 was dismissed for default vide Court order dated 18-12-2007. 3. This appeal is filed by the insurer against the common order and decree dated 01-5-2000 in O.P.No.788 of 1996 (along with O.P.Nos.468 and 821 of 1996) passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in awarding a sum of Rs.98,400/- towards compensation to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of deceased Rachakonda Seetha Ramulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16-01-1996 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP24T-1385 and 1386, respectively. 4. The appellant herein is the insurer, respondents 1 to 5 are the wife, father and three minor daughters of the deceased, respectively, and respondent No.5 is the owner of the offending tractor and trailor. 5. It is the main contention of the learned standing counsel for the insurer that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and hence, no liability can be fastened against the insurer. 6. But, however, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal by way of the common order passed in O.P.Nos.468, 788 and 821 of 1996, wherein the claim of the insurer in the present appeal was also considered. 7. Therefore, it appears that three O.Ps., were filed and were decided by way of the common order by the Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants. As against the award in O.P.No.468 of 1996, both the claimants as well as the insurer filed appeals C.M.A.Nos.2316 and 3268 of 2000, respectively, before this Court. The said appeals have been disposed of holding that the appeal filed by the claimants as was allowed in part. 8. The question as to whether the status of the deceased in O.P.No.468 of 1996 was a ‘gratuitous passenger’ or not, was not the subject matter of discussion in the appeal C.M.A.No.2316 of 2000 filed by the claimants. When the appeal C.M.A.No.3268 of 2000 filed by the insurer had come up for hearing, the same has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed in part, without going into the question as to whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or not and therefore, the ground taken by the learned standing counsel for the insurer that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger was not accepted to be gone into in the earlier appeal C.M.A.No.3268 of 2000. 9. Now, the present appeal is filed by the insurer against the claim made by the claimants in O.P.No.788 of 1996. There cannot be two stands as regards the status of the passengers/deceased in the same vehicle involved in the accident, resulting in common award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Therefore, the question of the status of the deceased as a gratuitous passenger cannot be permitted to be gone into in this appeal also, for the simple reason that the status of the deceased in the present appeal, which is filed against O.P.No.788 of 1996 also stands on the same footing as the deceased in O.P.No.468 of 1996. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 19th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.4185 of 2008 19th August, 2010. (Ak)