HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 695, 696, 728, 731, 733 to 736, 739 and 740 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals, at the instance of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are directed against the common judgment dated 27-09-2004 passed by the I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.695, 696, 728, 731, 734 to 736, 739 and 740 of 2005 arose out of the common order passed in O.P.Nos.27, 25, 24, 20, 22, 26, 18, 19 and 28 of 2002, respectively, filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, and M.A.C.M.A.No.733 of 2005 is arisen out of the common order in O.P.No.21 of 2002, filed by the injured for claiming their respective compensations. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is the same and the appellant-insurer is also the same in all these appeals, and that the appeals arose out of the common order passed in all the O.Ps, all these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this common judgment. 4. Brief facts of all the cases are that when the deceased in O.P.Nos.27, 25, 24, 20, 22, 26, 18, 19 and 28 of 2002, and the injured in O.P.No.21 of 2002, along with others, were travelling on a lorry bearing Regn. No.AP 04 T 6333, proceeding from cement factory near Racherla to Banaganapalli with a load of cement bags, and when they reached Narralagundam Kanuma, the lorry turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, and as a result of which, the deceased in the above stated O.Ps were died and the injured in O.P.No.21 of 2002 has sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the legal heirs of all the deceased and the injured approached the Tribunal and filed the present O.Ps claiming their respective compensations. 5. Before the Tribunal, R-1, owner of the lorry and R-2, insurer, filed their respective counters denying all the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the claimants. 6. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. As far as the compensations claimed by all the claimants, respectively, are concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.1 to 11 and R.Ws.1 and 2, and also the documentary evidence viz., Exs.A-1 to A-17 and also Exs.B-1, awarded compensations as claimed by the claimants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 7. Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether the victims travelled in the offending vehicle can be considered as hamalies? and if so, whether the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay the compensation? 8. The learned standing counsel, appearing for the appellant in all the appeals, contended that these are the cases of unauthorized passengers traveling in the offending vehicle. The Court below erroneously awarded compensations to the claimants as claimed by them. He further contended that since the passengers relating to these appeals stopped the vehicle in a mid way and boarded the vehicle, they are the unauthorized gratuitous passengers and that hence, they cannot be considered as hamalies of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to cover the risk under the policy to the claimants. He further contended that P.W.11, who is an independent witness, himself deposed that he stopped the vehicle in a mid-way and boarded the vehicle along with some other passengers. Based on his admission, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of P.W.11 in O.P.No.23 of 2002 and in the same way, the claims of other claimants also may be dismissed. He further contended that P.Ws.1 to 9 are not eyewitnesses to the accident. Based on the information received, they have spoken the manner of accident. Hence, their evidence is not reliable. Further, R.W.2, driver of the lorry, deposed that all the passengers are not hamalies of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation. Hence, all the appeals may be allowed. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals, contended that there are two sets of passengers in the lorry. One set of passengers boarded the lorry in a mid-way, and another set of passengers, who are stated to be the hamalies, were already there in the lorry, when the other set of passengers boarding the lorry. P.W.11, who is an unauthorized passenger, also stated this fact that when he boarded the vehicle in the mid-way, there were 15 other passengers in the lorry and they were all hamalies. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the Tribunal delivered the judgment. He further contended that even though the risk coverage is permitted to six hamalies only, it cannot be said that the insurer has no liability to pay the compensation to the claimants on the ground that there are more than six hamalies and hence, there is contravention on condition of contract. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Oriental Insuance Company Limited Vs. Milkhi Ram and others[1]. 10. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 11. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, accident occurred and due to which, some of the passengers died and some of the passengers were injured. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle is a goods carriage, wherein, no passengers can be contemplated to be traveling under the amended Motor Vehicles Act. PW-11 is an independent and eyewitness to the accident who deposed that even though some more persons have boarded the lorry at Racherla village along with him, some persons were already there in the lorry by that time and those persons were hamalies. His evidence can be believed since the total number of the persons in the lorry at the time of accident was more than 25. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that all the victims in these cases traveling in the lorry at the time of accident are in the capacity of hamalies. Therefore, they are all entitled to be considered for claiming compensation and the same is liable to be paid by both the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally. 12. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the common judgment passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. All the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 27.01.2011 kvr [1] 1995 (1) A.J.R. 226