HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No.3777 of 2003: Date:23.12.2009 Between: The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Br.Narsaraopet …Appellant And Banavat Rama Devi and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No.3777 of 2003: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, Narsaraopet, Guntur District challenging the award, dated 31.07.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Ongole in O.P.No.174 of 1996. 2. Challenge to the award by the Insurance Company is against the finding of the learned Tribunal, which is to the effect that the appellant is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant along with the second respondent- owner of the vehicle. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 4. The first respondent-Banavath Ramadevi filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the death of her husband Banavath Dhumsingh Naik in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.11.1993. Against the said claim, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,09,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment holding the appellant-insurance company as well as the owner jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. 5. The learned Tribunal gave a categorical finding that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle viz. the van bearing No. AP-7-U-435 at the time of the accident as a gratuitous passenger. But, following the ratio laid down in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sathpal Singh and others[1] held that despite the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The said finding has been challenged in this appeal. 6. The ratio in Sathpal Singh’s case has been overruled in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v ASHARANI AND OTHERS[2], and other subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and now the settled law is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the injuries sustained or death occurred in relation to a gratuitous passenger in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent is set aside and it is held that the second respondent-owner alone is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. 7. However, considering the fact that the first respondent- claimant is a tribal woman from a remote village and it is highly difficult for her to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle at this length of time and following the ratio in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v BALJIT KOUR[3] a n d NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v KUSUM AND OTHERS[4], the appellant-insurance company is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from the first respondent-owner of the vehicle without instituting a separate suit. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO ,J Date: 23.12.2009 ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No.3777 of 2003: Date:23.12.2009 [1]AIR 2000 SC 235 [2] 2003(1) ACJ [3] 2004 ACJ428 (SC) [4] 2009 ACJ 2655