IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBURARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4761 of 2003 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Nalgonda ..... Appellant And Banoth Rama and 2 others …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in OP.No.185 of 2000, dated 21-07-2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, passed in pursuance of the common order pronounced in O.P.Nos.185, 186 and 478 of 2000. On 25-6-1999 a group of labourers were engaged for loading and unloading the clay at Palakeedu village and Deccan Cement Factory from lorry No.AP-13-T-4999 and due to the rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver, it turned turtle near Nagireddy Gudem village outskirts. Banoth Narsimha died on the spot and the parents of Narsimha claimed a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry claiming the deceased to be earning Rs.2,500/- per month as a labourer. Neredcherla police registered Crime No.40 of 1999 against the lorry driver. The owner of the lorry did not contest the claim, while the insurer contended that the averments in the claim petition are false and the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the death of Banoth Narsimha in the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. In the joint trial of all the three claims arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1. The Tribunal firstly concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry based on the evidence of PW.3-the injured claimant in O.P.No.478 of 2000 corroborated by Exs.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased Banoth Narsimha as 16 years and his monthly income as Rs.900/- as a labourer. The Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.600/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and considered that grant of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability and Rs.20,000/- towards shock, mental agony and grief to the parents. On the sum of Rs.70,000/-, the Tribunal directed payment of interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs by both the respondents jointly and severally. In considering the question of liability of the insurer for the death or injury to the persons travelling in the lorry, the Tribunal opined that the labourers can be treated as gratuitous passengers. Referring to New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh (AIR 2000 SC 235) and some subsequent decisions, the Tribunal opined that subsequent to the 1994 Amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation even in such cases. The words “injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle” were considered as covering the labourers in the lorry also. The insurer filed the present appeal contending that the decision of the Tribunal is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy-Ex.B.1 and not in accordance with the decision in Asha Rani’s case (2003(1) ALD 18 (SC)). The Tribunal not only erred in assessing the quantum of compensation and granting of interest, but also illegally fastened the liability to the insurer. Though notice of the appeal was served, the claimants did not enter their appearance before this Court and even the owner of the vehicle also is unrepresented before this Court. Sri K. Kishore Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant is heard. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving and the ownership of the vehicle with the 3rd respondent herein and its subsisting insurance with the appellant herein are not in dispute. The quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and the interest and proportionate costs awarded by it on such compensation are also not seriously in dispute though informally questioned in the grounds of appeal. The only question is about the liability of the insurer in respect of the labourers travelling in the goods vehicle. The Tribunal itself concluded that they were gratuitous passengers travelling in the lorry though it was stated in the claim petition that they were engaged for loading and unloading the clay being carried in the lorry and the finding of fact that the deceased and the injured were travelling in the lorry as gratuitous passengers had become final in the absence of any challenge by the claimants or the owner of the vehicle. In Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,[1] the Apex Court was specifically considering cases arising after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act by Central Act 15 of 1994. The Apex Court declared after considering National Insurance Company v. Satpal Singh and others (2000 (1) SCC 237) and the 1994 Amendment that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for the deceased or the injured persons travelling in a goods carriage, who are either the owners or his representatives. The interpretation to the contrary by the Tribunal runs counter to the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Apex Court, which expressly and by necessary implication excluded the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to any persons other than the owners or representatives of the owners of the goods being carried in a goods carriage. If so, the appeal has to succeed to the extent of the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation, while the award shall remain insofar as the owner of the vehicle is concerned. Therefore, the award dated 21-7-2003 in O.P.No.185 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, is set aside against the appellant and the said O.P.No.185 of 2000 is dismissed against the appellant without costs. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2001 ACJ 1565