IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1150 of 2002 & 2018 of 2002 C.M.A.No.1150 of 2002 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Regional Officer, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Smt. Ramavathi Maruthi and others .. Respondents C.M.A.No.2018 of 2002 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Regional Officer, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Ratlavathi Bikki and others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the awards in O.P.Nos.233 and 232 of 1997 dated 2-11-2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. As both the appeals by the insurer are directed against the claims arising out of the same accident and the common order thereon, both the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties. On 12-09-1996, Ratlavath Devla Naik, Ramavath Shiva Naik and other labourers were travelling in lorry No.AEK-6058 with a load of Chilly bags towards Guntur from Macherla and the lorry, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against a buffalo near Jangalagunta village, on which it turned turtle. Devla Naik and Shiva Naik died, while one more labourer also died and other labourers sustained injuries. Crime No.68 of 1996 was registered by Medikondur police against the lorry driver and the dependents of Devla Naik, and Shiva Naik filed the claims for a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively from the owner and insurer of the lorry in question. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte in both the cases before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claims contending that the claimants have to prove all their allegations including the lorry driver having a valid licence. The insurer contended that the vehicle being a goods vehicle, it is for the claimants to show the absence of any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal framed identical issues in both the claims about the death of Devla Naik and Shiva Naik respectively, the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and the non-liability of the insurer for any compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and B.1 during joint enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the common order leading to the impugned awards, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.3, who was travelling in the lorry and was injured in the same accident, corroborated by Ex.A.2-earliest version in the FIR. It also referred to Ex.A.3-Charge Sheet to Ex.A.8-Certified copy of Post Mortem report and concluded that the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry led to the accident. The Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation to which the claimants in each case are entitled at the amounts claimed by them and following New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh (AIR 2000 SC 235), the Tribunal considered the claimants to be entitled to compensation no matter that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal noted that though a reference was made to a Larger Bench in New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Asha Rani (2001 SOL Case 481), Satpal Singh’s case was not overruled by then. Consequently, the Tribunal gave various directions about the grant of interest and costs on the compensation, sharing of compensation and disbursement of the compensation. The insurer challenged these awards in these appeals solely on the ground of nature of travel of the deceased in the lorry as unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle and not as owners of the goods being carried in the lorry. The appellant contended that the later decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Asha Rani[1] disentitles the claimants from making any claim against the insurer. Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7 in C.M.A.No.1150 of 2002 and respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.2018 of 2002 are heard, while the owner of the vehicle impleaded as 8th respondent in C.M.A.No.1150 of 2002 and 4th respondent in C.M.A.No.2018 of 2002 remained unrepresented before this Court also. The responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rashness and negligence, the ownership of the vehicle with the 8th respondent in C.M.A.No.1150 of 2002/4th respondent in C.M.A. No.2018 of 2002, the subsistence of insurance of the vehicle at the relevant time with the appellant herein, Devla Naik and Shiva Naik breathing their last in the accident and the claimants in the two cases being their dependents respectively are not in dispute in these appeals and the justness and adequacy of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal are also not in dispute herein. The appeals are directed only against the non-liability of the insurer due to the nature of travel of the deceased in the vehicle in question and the consideration herein is confined to the same. The earliest version in the FIR clearly alleged that 9 persons, who came for agricultural labour work, boarded the lorry with a cement load for returning to their village as passengers including the deceased Devla Naik and Shiva Naik. The First Information Report also positively stated that the lorry driver was facilitating boarding of passengers and dropping them on the way in the course of travel before the accident. The earliest version has absolutely no reference to the deceased carrying any load of goods with them or travelling in the vehicle as owners of such goods carried in the vehicle. The Tribunal itself noted in the impugned order that the claim that the deceased were travelling with Chilly bags was in dispute and obviously, there was no evidence to show the deceased carrying any goods being carried in the vehicle at the relevant time. It is seen from the copy of the inquest reports also that the findings of the independent mediators regarding the nature of travel of the deceased were identical and the charge sheet filed by the police also makes no different allegations. Hence, it has to be concluded that the deceased Devla Naik and Shiva Naik were travelling in the subject lorry at the relevant time as unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, whether fare paid or gratuitous. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Asha Rani (1 supra), the Apex Court held that Satpal Singh’s case was not correctly decided and the insurer was held to be not liable for paying compensation in respect of any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. In the light of the principles so laid down by the Apex Court followed in all subsequent decisions, the grant of compensation against the insurer following Satpal Singh’s case has to be reversed. However, it has to be noted that while admitting these appeals, the appellant-insurer was directed to deposit half of the compensation awarded by the impugned awards to the credit of the matters, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the major claimants, while directing the shares of the then minor claimants to be kept in fixed deposit and the then minor claimants appeared to have become majors due to efflux of time in the meanwhile and they also might have withdrawn the amounts of their respective shares in the meanwhile. As the insurer was not liable to pay such amounts, the principle of “pay and recover” should be straight away applicable to the said amounts entitling the insurer to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without the necessity of being referred to any other suit or legal proceeding. These appeals have to be ordered accordingly, but, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, without costs. Hence, the awards against the appellant in O.P.No.232 of 1997 and O.P.No.233 of 1997 dated 2-11-2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, are set aside against the appellant and the appellant shall be entitled to recover the amounts deposited by it to the credit of the matters respectively by virtue of interim directions of this Court from the 8th respondent in C.M.A.No.1150 of 2002/4th respondent in C.M.A.No.2018 of 2002/the owner of the subject vehicle. The appeals are ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-01-2011 Ksn [1] AIR 2003 Supreme Court 607