THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3474 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 08.12.2003 in O.P.No.414 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam questioning quantum of compensation. The petitioners, who are the appellants herein, have filed a claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Chagarlamudi Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah in a motor accident. According to the case of the petitioners that on 21.08.1997 when the marriage party was proceeding to Veladikothapalem village on a lorry bearing No.ADB-4228 from Nandigama to celebrate marriage function, the deceased was carrying the articles and due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, which turned turtle and the deceased received injuries. The vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent-driver remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-owner filed counter contending that the vehicle was already sold to one Sk.Ismail and there is no liability. The 3rd respondent- insurance company filed counter contending that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and consequently the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The lower Tribunal, after considering the material on record, determined the compensation at Rs.98,500/- payable by respondents 1 and 2, but exonerated the liability of the insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the insurance company? POINT: The claim of the petitioners is on the specific allegation that on the date of incident a marriage party was going in the lorry for attending a marriage function and the deceased was said to be carrying some goods for the function. It clearly goes to show that the goods vehicle has been engaged for the purpose of transporting of the marriage party and that itself is a violation of the conditions of policy. Apart from it, in a goods vehicle, the petitioners cannot claim that the deceased was carrying the goods for the purpose of an engagement of the lorry, is quite different. The law is now fairly settled that no unauthorised person can travel in a goods vehicle and consequently the insurance company cannot be held liable. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI[1] and the lower Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 16-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3474 of 2011 DATE: 16-12-2011 MR [1] (2003)2 SCC 223