HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.Nos. 408 and 411 of 2001 Date: 08-02-2011 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ……… Appellant and Kurati Pati Laxmi and another ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.Nos. 408 and 411 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Durga Prasad) These two Appeals are filed Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant-insurance company questioning the common order passed by a learned single Judge in C.M.A.No.574 of 1996 and 2121 of 1997, dated 12-04-2001. The claimants made the claim petitions separately before the Tribunal for compensation for the death of the deceased, who was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a jeep which met with accident on 08-02-1992 at 2-15 PM at Raja Ramesh Talkies, Armoor, Nizamabad. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration of the material placed before it, awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the claimants with proportionate costs, and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally. The insurance company, being aggrieved by the same, filed Appeals and a learned single Judge, by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in AMRITLAL SOOD AND ANOTHER v. SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPER AND OTHERS [1], held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation even to the inmates of the car involved in the accident though gratuitously travelling. The learned single Judge allowed the cross objections filed by the claimant in O.P.No.410 of 1992 in C.M.A.No.2121 of 1997 and granted another Rs.15,000/- to the claimants. Now the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has pleaded that the said decision is no longer good law in view of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in DR. T.V. JOSE v. CHACKO P.M. [2], wherein the Apex Court held that in the event of the death of the gratuitous passenger in a car, the insurance company is not liable for payment of the compensation and the policy does not cover liability to gratuitous passengers, who are not carried for hire or reward. In the present case, admittedly, the policy issued by the appellant is only an act policy, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. However, in view of the amount granted by the Tribunal is only Rs.25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively, it is just and proper to direct the insurance company to pay the said compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing execution petition. In the result, the Letter Patent Appeals are allowed and the liability of the insurance company is set aside. However, the insurance company is directed to pay the amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing execution petition. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 08-02-2011 YCR [1] AIR 1998 SC 1433 [2] 2001 ACJ 2059