THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1717 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11.01.2002 in O.P.No.1275 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad questioning the liability of the insurance company. The claim was made for a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Prabhakar in a motor accident on 07.09.1999. It was pleaded that the deceased was traveling in a maruti car bearing No.ATG 5566 belongs to the 1st respondent and due to rash and negligent driving of the car the incident happened and the deceased received injuries and died. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. The deceased was said to be aged about 30 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a tailor. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the accident and his liability. The insurance company filed counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of the petition averments. Both the respondents alleged that the claim is excessive. The lower Tribunal after considering the rival contentions found that the deceased was traveling in the car and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the incident happened and granted a compensation of Rs.4,64,359.36 paise. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was no coverage of the policy and the driver was not authorized to carry the deceased and the evidence of R.W.1, the owner of the vehicle, is also clinching on this aspect and, therefore, discloses the same and the fastening of the liability is not valid. In substance the claim of the appellant is that there is violation of the conditions of the policy and as such the appellant is not liable to pay the amount. Evidently, the lower Tribunal has erred in holding that even if the person traveling in a car is a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The above question is no longer in dispute in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI[1], where in case of gratuitous passenger the insurance company was held not liable to pay the amount. But, however, in this case, the car was covered under a valid policy of insurance under Ex.B-1, which is a comprehensive policy. In view of the circular of the Tariff Advisory Committee, when there is a comprehensive policy even for a private car, the insurance company has to pay the amount. The said circular was said to have been issued on 02.06.1986. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and the deceased cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger. The lower Tribunal has also taken into consideration the income of the deceased and fixed the same at Rs.3,500/-, which does not appeal to be excessive. But, however, the lower Tribunal has granted the interest at 12% per annum, which appears to be not proper and keeping in view of the judgment reported i n SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2], the interest is granted at 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum as granted by the lower Tribunal. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 30-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1717 of 2011 DATE: 30-08-2011 MR [1] (2003)2 SCC 223 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121