THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 2923 of 2003 DATE: 18-03-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant And Gandiboina Veera Raju and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 2923 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.04.2003 passed in O.P.No.237 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed urging that the lower Tribunal while observing the insurance company-R3 is not liable to pay the compensation but ordered to pay the compensation by 3rd respondent to the petitioners and that the 3rd respondent may in turn recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Now the point for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the compensation payable as directed by the lower Court? As seen from the impugned order at para-26, reads that “though the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to contribute the above compensation, the petitioner can recover the compensation amount then the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company; and the 3rd respondent in turn can recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.” In para-24 of the impugned order, it was noted that “as deceased was an unauthorized passenger of goods vehicle, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and, therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the owner, because it is in violation of the conditions of the policy.” When the Court below came to the conclusion that there is violation of conditions of the policy as the deceased being unauthorized passenger of goods vehicle, there is no reason fostering the liability against the 3rd respondent-insurance company. In any view of the matter and in view of the positive finding of the lower Court that deceased is an unauthorized passenger of goods vehicle, which is a violation of policy conditions and also as held in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KAUSHALAYA DEVI[1], the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation from the insurance company as the deceased was not the owner of the goods and he was unauthorized passenger of a goods vehicle. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court fostering liability on the insurance company do not hold water and hence, it came to the conclusion that the deceased is an unauthorized passenger of goods vehicle and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the order of the lower Court directing the insurance company to pay compensation is not sustainable. The petitioners can recover the compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle, the insured. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 18-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 2923 of 2003 DATE: 18-03-2011 MR [1] 2008 ACJ 2144