THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.M.P.No.6989 OF 2004 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.1321 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: Since the 2nd respondent remained ex parte in the lower Court, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. In view of the circumstances stated in the petition affidavit, the delay of 91 days in filing the CMA is condoned. 2. Admit. 3. Heard. 4. The insurance company, who is the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.1080 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Guntur is the appellant herein. The application was for recovery of compensation for the injuries sustained by the 1st petitioner in a motor accident. 5. As can be seen from the allegations in the petition on 08.03.1997 at about 11.00. A.M., when the petitioner along with others was travelling in a lorry bearing No.AAG 6155 with sugar canes to go to Guntur, the lorry met with an accident and he suffered injuries and also incurred medical expenditure. The 1st respondent, who is the owner, remained ex parte. 2nd respondent, who is the appellant herein, contended that the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger and therefore, there is no liability as there is violation of the conditions of the insurance. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B.1. 7. The lower Court after considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.99,000/- and passed a decree against both the respondents. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the lower Tribunal? 9. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the Exs.A.1 to A.5, it is quite clear that the petitioner was travelling in a goods vehicle, which met with an accident and he received injuries. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and also the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, the lower Curt assessed the compensation at Rs.99,000/-. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger, there cannot be any joint and several liability and there is a violation of the conditions of policy under Ex.B.1. 11. There is no dispute about the settled proposition of law in view of the judgment reported in New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani[1], where-under, it was held that the insurance company is not liable for compensation for any incident that has occurred when a person was travelled as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. 12. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, there cannot be any joint and several liability for the appellant herein. 13. But, however, as per the directions of this Court, the appellant has deposited half of the compensation amount, which the claimants were permitted to withdraw. Therefore, there is no further liability for the appellant and the balance amount of compensation can only be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. The appellant is at liberty to recover the compensation paid by it from the owner. Accordingly, points are answered. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Each party shall bear their own costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:04.07.2011 INL [1] 2003(1) ACJ 1