THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 459 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 18.4.2002 made in O.P.No. 682 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, the present C.M.A. is filed mainly urging that the tribunal below should have seen that the deceased was a midway unauthorized passenger and he traveled contrary to the terms of policy and thereby the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. G. SAMPOORNA[1], NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PARVATHANENI & ANOTHER[2] and also another decision reported in DEDDULA PADMAVATHI Vs. MADDALA SRINIVASA RAO[3]. In Deddula Padmavathi’s case (3rd cited supra) it was held as follows: “MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Sections147(1)(b)(i) and 2(13) – Owner of goods carried in goods vehicle – Goods – Meaning of – Persons who board goods vehicle carrying goods of some others, in the midway with some luggage –Not covered by the policy – One or two bags of vegetables being carried by a passenger who boarded lorry in midway would only be his luggage and would not become goods – Volume and weight of bags would have relevance to find out whether they are luggage or goods – Inquest panchanama showing that offending lorry started with a load of Kadapa slabs – FIR showing that the deceased boarded it midway as a passenger along with others – No evidence to show that deceased boarded lorry with vegetable bags – In the absence of evidence that deceased traveled in the lorry as owner of the goods loaded therein, order of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation – Not erroneous.” The counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the deceased in this case is not a gratuitous passenger but he is a fare paid passenger and that he met with the accident while he was traveling in the vehicle as a owner of the goods and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased and placed reliance on the decisions reported in N.K.V. BROTHERS (P) LTD. Vs. M. KARUMAI AMMAL & OTHERS[4], ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. K. HANUMANTHA RAO & OTHERS[5]. In Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company’s case (5th cited supra), it was held as follows: “Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 94 and 95(1)©(ii) (Sections 146 and 147(1)©(ii) of Act 59 of 1988) read with Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, Rules 213, 277 and 277-A – Liability of Insurance Company – Sheep owners traveling with their sheeps in goods vehicle and two died and three persons sustained injuries as a result of accident – Tribunal awarded compensation and single Judge ofHigh Court dismissed the appeals- Insurer contended that goods vehicles are meant for transporting goods and not for passengers and denied its liability for payment of compensation – Whether Insurance Company is liable for compensation – Held – Yes – Owner of goods deemed to be a passenger for hire or reward and insurer is liable for the tortuous act of the driver of the vehicle.” The learned counsel for the respondent further relied on a decision reported in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. PUSHPA & OTHERS[6], wherein it was held as follows: “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147(1)(b)(i) read with General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 13 – Motor insurance – Goods vehicle – Passenger risk – Liability of insurance company – Contention that expression ‘owner of the goods or his authorized representative’ has been used in singular, section 147 does not contemplate fastening of liability on insurance company for more than one owner of the goods or his authorized representative – Singular includes plural and vice versa in all Central Acts and Regulations as per Section 13 of General Clauses Act – Whether insurance company is liable for all the owners of goods or their representatives traveling in the goods vehicle – Held: yes; expression ‘owner or his representative’ used in singular has to be taken to include ‘owners or their representatives’; Motor Vehicles Act does not prohibit hiring a goods vehicle by several owners for different goods exclusively belonging to them separately which goods may be of similar nature.” The learned counsel for the respondent further relied on a decision reported in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANTY LIMITED Vs. YARAVA LAKSHMI DEVI & OTHERS[7], wherein it was held as follows: “MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 147(1)(b) (i) (as amended by Central Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11- 1994) – Insurance goods vehicle – Accident occurred in 1996 after amendment – In view of amendment, passengers traveling in goods vehicle as owner of goods are covered under the Insurance policy as per Section 147(1)(b)(i) of 1988 Act – Contention of appellant to the contrary that the deceased being passengers in goods vehicle, they are not covered by policy – Rejected – Deceased in the case died due to accident while traveling in lorry along with their goods – Insurance Company therefore liable to pay compensation – Law under the old Act of 1939 and new Act of 1988 before and after amendment – Stated.” Now the point for consideration is whether the deceased is a midway passenger/gratuitous passenger or a passenger with goods or unpaid passenger? As seen from the impugned order, the tribunal below found that the deceased is a fare paid passenger. It is the case of the claim petitioners that on 4.8.1997 the deceased while proceeding in crime vehicle i.e. Tata Van bearing No. AP-5-X-512 along with lemon bags for the purpose of selling the same in the market, the said vehicle met with an accident resulting the deceased died with multiple injuries. On over all scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the tribunal below was of the view that the deceased in this case was traveling as owner of the goods in the Van and the goods are the bags of lemon to be transported to Eluru market and in the mid way, the van met with an accident and as such the driver and the insurance company also cannot escape from it’s liability. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal below is that the deceased was traveling as a owner of goods at the time of accident. The documents filed in support of the claim petitioners are to be looked into. Ex.A-4 is the pattedar pass book stands in the name of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. As per Ex.A-4, she owned an extent of 0-25 guntas of land in Sy.No. 181/2, Ac.3-43 cents in Sy.No.182/27. According to her, the said land is being cultivated by the deceased. Ex.A-5 also discloses that P.W.1 was the owner of Ac.3-26 gts. which is being cultivated by the deceased himself. Ex.A-6 is the ryot pass book standing in the name of the deceased evidencing that he is having 11 acres of land in different survey numbers. Ex.A-7 is another pass book relates to an extent of 9-5 ½ cents in another survey number. On a combined reading of the aforesaid books, the deceased as well as the P.W.1 are having sufficient lands. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was taking lemon bags as a owner of the goods. In order to discharge the burden that the deceased is the owner of the goods, P.W.1 pressed into service the documentary evidence in particular Ex.A-4 to A-7. As per her evidence on 4.8.1997 her husband i.e. the deceased was taking 11 bags of lemon to Eluru market to sell the same. She further deposed that the deceased engaged the vehicle along with one Bala Krishna for transportation of lemon bags on hire charges. She admitted that they owned 12 acres of lemon garden besides some other lands. She further asserted that the deceased has taken the lemon bags in a tractor to the highway from there he engaged the offending vehicle for transportation of lemon bags. She further stated that her husband was transporting 10 to 12 bags of lemon and each bag containing 3000 lemon fruits. The said lemon are from and out of last cut 4 acres of lemon garden. P.W.2 is another witness, who examined on behalf of the claim petitioners also deposed that their family owned 8 acres of land in which they are raising lemon garden. Therefore, the cumulative evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exs.P-4 to P-7 clearly established that the deceased owned lemon garden and while transporting the lemon in the offending van, he met with the accident. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the firm view that the deceased in this case was traveling as owner of the fruits in the van. In the set of circumstances, it can be said without any hesitation that he is not a gratuitous passenger and he is the owner of the goods traveling at the time of the accident. Having regard to the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the deceased is a midway passenger, but it can be said positively that he is the owner of the goods. In this view of the matter, the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle shall jointly pay the compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal below granting of compensation directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay to the petitioners is sustainable. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ 3.3.2011 CHV [1] 2010 ALD (4) 586 [2] (2009)8 S.C.C. 785 [3] 2004(6) A.L.T. 496 [4] AIR 1980 S.C. 1354 [5] 1997(1) T.A.C. 16(A.P.) [6] 2005 ACJ 578 [7] 2009(4) A.L.T. 151